Rate The Last Movie You Watched - Page 801

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc-holliday 

+1. I have seen em both a couple of times. I would also agree the first one is the better of the two while the 2nd is still a very entertaining watch.

I think whoever chose RDJ to be in the lead role was brilliant...you really need someone with amazing charisma to fully bring that character to life, and he's got it in spades. I'm really looking forward to the 3rd film. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Focker 

I'm guessing you're going to really enjoy Ironman 2, Redcar...I thought both films were quite strong. 

Thanks...........

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc-holliday 


I agree. This is another instance where casting can make or break a movie.
You made me think of the movie Salt as an example. Great movie and story but IMO having a skinny model-like female go around beating a bunch of grown men unconscious is hard for me to watch. Did you know that role was initially intended for Tom Cruise? He didn't bite on it because he had a valid concern that the charachter would overlap on Ethan Hunt's persona too much. Well instead of picking some other equally BA action hero, then went for a skinny chickie.
I just honestly think that Salt could have easily been the next Bourne series. You could have had at least 2 successful sequels out of that movie IMO.
Many people didn't but I actually still enjoyed the film a lot and thought it was a great story. Too bad it was wasted on poor casting.

Interesting, I didn't know that was offered to Cruise...my reaction to Salt was pretty luke warm...I agree it had unrealized potential. 

I think in terms of superhero movies, the ones I've been most surprised by lately were Hellboy and Thor. I will pretty much always watch a film based on Marvel or DC Comics characters...but I wasn't really chomping at the bit to see either. Both entertained me quite a bit, though....on the other hand, I was really eager to see Captain America, but I found myself somewhat bored. It was well done and it had its moments, but I feel it's a clear step down from Iron Man. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc-holliday 


I agree. This is another instance where casting can make or break a movie.
You made me think of the movie Salt as an example. Great movie and story but IMO having a skinny model-like female go around beating a bunch of grown men unconscious is hard for me to watch. Did you know that role was initially intended for Tom Cruise? He didn't bite on it because he had a valid concern that the charachter would overlap on Ethan Hunt's persona too much. Well instead of picking some other equally BA action hero, then went for a skinny chickie.
I just honestly think that Salt could have easily been the next Bourne series. You could have had at least 2 successful sequels out of that movie IMO.
Many people didn't but I actually still enjoyed the film a lot and thought it was a great story. Too bad it was wasted on poor casting.

That's why I'm saying that you can't over think this stuff. I loved Salt and it was one of the best movies for the year it came out. They were totally over the top on how she "flew" down elevator shafts and kicked butt. They are really just cinematic comics and the unreal-ness is both a double edge, an attribute and dept at times. Most-likely much better to see at age 11.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Focker 

 

Interesting, I didn't know that was offered to Cruise...my reaction to Salt was pretty luke warm...I agree it had unrealized potential. 

 

I think in terms of superhero movies, the ones I've been most surprised by lately were Hellboy and Thor. I will pretty much always watch a film based on Marvel or DC Comics characters...but I wasn't really chomping at the bit to see either. Both entertained me quite a bit, though....on the other hand, I was really eager to see Captain America, but I found myself somewhat bored. It was well done and it had its moments, but I feel it's a clear step down from Iron Man. 

Thor totally surprised me and really started me to thinking I could get into all these comic book movies after, of course Batman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc-holliday 


Had the same reaction to Captain America. Hellboy I liked a lot. Thor...... meh, it was alright. It was great seeing avengers after seeing all of the connections from CA, to Thor, to Iron Man, to Hulk and so on. They did a decent job of linking all of those movies together.
Yep and i agree with you and I state that same sentiment on here regularly in terms of preparing yourself for a certain type of movie and not over analyzing it. that is how I was able to enjoy the film at all. And I did enjoy it like I said.
And because I did enjoy it, it really did irk me how much of a better movie it could have been had the casting been better and more specifically had the role been filled how it was originally intended. By a male character.
edit: oh focker... imagine if J. Statham could have been written into that role somehow.... Of course his accent wouldn't quite fit the whole US government thing

agree!  but ...................chicks are better to look at ......IMO.

Imagine Larry Croft not Lara Croft.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc-holliday 



edit: oh focker... imagine if J. Statham could have been written into that role somehow.... Of course his accent wouldn't quite fit the whole US government thing

haha, Statham would be a badass avenger...or even put him in a bad guy role...even better! 

Re-watched Good Will Hunting after a couple years, still a classic, perfect 10. It was definitely some of Matt Damon's best work. Whatever happened to the actress that played his girlfriend though

SuckerPunch7/10 know what? I liked it....I'm just sad it got butchered due to the  publishing company wanting it to rated pg-13 and not is nearly nc-17 original rating.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey: 6/10 (Minor spoilers!)

Yeah--it's exactly as I feared. Jackson needs a sterner editor. There is very likely an excellent movie here, but it's buried under some serious bloat, and is almost crippled by very uneven pacing. It's still an alright movie--the second-half of the film is noticeably stronger than the first, and builds to a pretty satisfying climax. The first half though---man, where do I start? It's really quite a mess.

Perhaps the biggest problem is one of tone: Jackson has elected to incorporate quite a bit of the heaviness from The Lord of the Rings into this film, while trying to retain the source material's lighter and wittier spirit. His solution to this problem is inelegant--in that he really doesn't have a solution. He just sort of crams what he can into where it can reasonably fit, which results in numerous jarring sequences that would feel out of place even if they were brief scenes. Jackson being Jackson, however, there are no brief scenes, and nearly everything is stretched on for longer than it reasonably needs to be. This problem is compounded by the fact that The Hobbit is a very episodic story, and while Jackson and his team do introduce a significant subplot concerning an orc who is hunting Thorin's party in order to give the movie a more driving force (essentially taking the place of the Black Riders in LotR), Jackson's inability to 'settle down' render this addition mostly worthless, though it does admittedly result in a fairly good climax, which the film might otherwise lack. It wouldn't be too much off-base to say that I actively hated this movie for at least the first hour--it all felt like the sort of stuff that you'd expect to see in deleted scenes, or perhaps in an extended edition for the hardcore fans. (I have learned with much dismay that more footage is being prepared for this movie for an extended cut. I was hoping that any sort of director's cut would have actually lost about an hour or so of the movie.)

Things do pick up quite a bit as the film moves into its second-half: the first-half may feel like three hours in and of itself, but the second-half of the film breezes by incredibly quickly--it's a lot of fun. Of particular note is the 'Riddles in the Dark' scene--arguably the most famous scene in all of fantasy literature comes to life brilliantly here, and Gollum has never looked better . It's truly the high point of the film, and I actually wish that it could have gone on a bit longer. The climax and the fast-paced (if over-the-top) adventures in Goblin Town are also really a pleasure to see, and the occasional echoes of scenes from LotR are more welcome than you might expect.

On to the technology: the 3D is fine--it does not detract from the film, though it does not really add anything to it either. The film does not suffer from being too dark, a common problem with 3D. Indeed, a good chunk of this movie takes place in dark caves or after nightfall, and it never once looked murky or dim. As is usually the case with 3D, objects in the extreme foreground occasionally look removed from the remainder of the action and are prone to looking like paper cutouts--like they are perhaps a bit incorporeal. Still, I was never distracted by the 3D--though ultimately I would say it's not worth the surcharge.

As for the 48 FPS.... this I have problems with. Some people will write these problems off as me just not being used to the technology, and they may have a point. I will say that it did help the 3D out tremendously--I've never seen 3D look this crisp before. That aside, for me it ultimately did more harm than it did good. All of the makeup looks like makeup, the sets look like sets, and the CGI looks like CGI. I know that the higher frame rate is supposed to look more realistic, and it does--but in a film where so much is not real, it hurts more than it helps. It strips the romanticism away from the film--and while you may scoff at such a statement, let's not forget that this is fantasy. It's supposed to look romantic. Unfortunately, it mostly just makes the film look like actors trudging around on sets in thickly-applied makeup--the only sequences that benefit directly from the higher FPS are the sweeping landscape shots and the quickly-paced battle sequences. (So quickly paced, in fact, that I suspect that they may look quite bad in 24 fps). You'd think it'd do the CGI favors, at least, but it doesn't really--it makes the special effects-heavy sequences look like something from straight out of a triple-A video game title, instead. In some places, the cartoony floatiness that the 48 FPS imparts on the CGI is downright terrible looking--every scene that Radagast's rabbit-powered sleigh is involved looks laughably bad, for instance. (It doesn't help matters that Radagast may be the worst character I've seen in a movie since Jar Jar...)

In sum: I suppose it's fair to say that The Hobbit is a let-down. It ends strongly at least, and does genuinely give me hope that with this establishing chapter out of the way, things will move more smoothly going forward. Still, I'm sort of cynical about the whole thing: this tale does not need three, three-hour long movies to do it justice. Not if the first of those three hours is anything to go by. As of right now, I'd say it's more of a blatant attempt at a money grab, or just a huge vanity project for Jackson (something I honestly hoped he'd gotten out of his system with King Kong). It's got enough going for it to please fans, and it did ultimately leave me wanting more, but this still feels like a misstep. I only hope that the next film fares better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteCrow 

SuckerPunch7/10 know what? I liked it....I'm just sad it got butchered due to the  publishing company wanting it to rated pg-13 and not is nearly nc-17 original rating.

It's actually better (4 me anyway) the second time you watch it.

The Hobbit (IMAX 3D, HFR)

I'll divide the review in 2 parts, because not everyone will watch it in 3D.

Story/Acting/Cinematography

I found it was all pretty engaging. The actors who reprise their roles are well, same as you saw them in LOTR.

The first hour has a lot of filler, but the next two hours are interesting.

Still I found the tone is serious, not as light hearted as the book, if I recall correctly. The scale of it makes it seem like a mini-LOTR.

All in all, its a visual feast. The story most will know already, but the best part is seeing it come to life.

3D/HFR

Ok, this is a tricky one. I both loved it and hated it, so I'll list the pros and cons.

Pros:

The action scenes are spectacular. You won't miss anything, its all crystal clear, its as if you're witnessing the fight yourself. In fact everything that involves fast moving objects is a sight to behold. So in conclusion, very realistic.

Cons:

The technology used is so advanced, its started to reveal the minor flaws that you otherwise wouldn't notice. I could see Gandalf's wearing contact lenses, the vibration or speed variation in the camera dolly movements, or a minor prop thats fake.

Any shots that aren't natural for us, for example, the wide angle shot from the top looking down, or ones where the camera rotates around, are just wierd, there's no other way to put it.

Sometimes it felt like a Nat-Geo documentary.

Conclusion

So, the problem is that its so real it exposes the magic. The magician thinks he's going to take a rabbit out of his hat, but you already have X-ray vision which shows where the rabbit is hidden.

Which means the trick needs to be designed keeping that in mind.

I think the technology is good, the way its used needs to change. HFR doesn't gel with the conventional movie making style. For example, the birds eye shot, or the low angle shot, or some angle shot doesn't work, because its immediately noticeable as fake.

It needs to be shot as if you are the camera, which means anything you can't do, the camera cannot do as well.

That, and maybe some super wide angle aerial shots for the scenery.

Oh, and please stop using HFR+3D. I can't take these headaches anymore. At one point it felt like my eyes were being pulled out of my sockets and my head was clamped in a vice. I'm going to take a break from 3D for a while.

My advice, watch it in the conventional way, you'll enjoy it more.