Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Rate The Last Movie You Watched
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rate The Last Movie You Watched - Page 802

post #12016 of 16035
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalsonata View Post

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.


Really nice, in-depth review metalsonata. For a minute there I completely forgot I was on Head-Fi and thought I was on one of my movie websites! tongue.gif

 

Many places I've read have echoed the same thing, that this movie suffers greatly from poor editing, and Jackson is stretching the material here almost to death. Since I wont see it in 3D/48fps anyway, I'm probably just going to wait for this one on blu-ray.

post #12017 of 16035

Everybody who read the book know that it hardly has material for even one full length movie. I know he borrowed stuff from silmarillion and added things on his own but... Three movies is just katjing for new line Cinema. Will see if we will get extended versions of these movies too lol

 

Great review funny I had a really deja vu reading that. Was exactly the same as a swedish impression I read. I guess reference is like for music. Very few want to listen to a recording exactly as it´s with all flaws and that.

I kind of enjoy seeing how a movie is done so I don´t believe I would get to upset. The thing is you can apply motion blur and aliasing and whatever techniques to hid ugly stuff but you can´t make smooth panoramas in 24p. It´s just impossible so I like what I read so far.

post #12018 of 16035


Boot Tracks (2012) 6.2/10 and Alex Cross (2012) 6.2/10

Watched this pair,found them to be on an even keel with each other.
Mediocre made for TV feel with glimpses of almost taking off.
Edited by 5aces - 12/15/12 at 9:13am
post #12019 of 16035
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanamaHat View Post

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

 

Minnie Driver...amazingly smart, charismatic, charming woman. I think she was on Broadway for a while or something....she's also a classically trained opera singer, I believe. 

 

Great film, though, I agree. I've seen it several times and always enjoyed it. Fantastic cast. 

post #12020 of 16035

Jurassic Park (1993): 8/10

 

It's been years since the last time I saw this (probably well over a decade), and I'm pretty impressed at not only how well it has aged, but also at how intense an experience it has remained. Also, boy does it make me long for the days when big-budget movies made prominent use of puppetry and animatronics, because they really do look fantastic, and help to lend actual presence to the scenes that they appear in--something that I feel CGI still has trouble with. Speaking of CGI, it still looks pretty decent here, I'd say. The t-rex in the rain sequence looks particularly good--I'm not sure that I've encountered another CGI monster that looms in my memory as powerfully as she does. 

post #12021 of 16035

"The Bourne Legacy" [7.4/10]: I thought that his film had potential with a successful franchise behind it. I also really like Jeremy Renner. Hey, the film was a decent Saturday night pay-per-view watch. I was under-impressed however with the story and with the acting. It seemed to me to be a "dial-it-in" film all the way around. The ending was very weak.

post #12022 of 16035
^^ "The Bourne legacy". 6/10. My least favorite of the series.acting was OK at best, nothing special or remarkable. I thought the story was disjointed and pretty weak. The ending reminded me of one of James bond movies when they where on the boat.I though the movie was short as well.
Overall, Matt Demon is in another league compared to Jeremy IMO.

The Duchess: 9/10. I love movies that discuss that British era. Beautiful and sad story based on real events. I recommend it if you enjoy watching historical movies.(18th century events).
post #12023 of 16035

215px-The_Pianist_movie.jpg

 

 

10/10

 

Beautiful ********* Film. My children will watch this one day.

post #12024 of 16035

For those still making up your mind about HFR movies, you should try out the samples from this website: http://www.48fpsmovies.com/high-frame-rate-example-videos/

 

I found the effect is immediate, a scene looks like 'film' at 24fps, the same scene looks like 'video' at 48fps.

post #12025 of 16035

It just make 110 % sense it look more similar to 50 hz material then 24hz material :)

post #12026 of 16035

Catch me if you can - I'll give it 7/10 since it's a quite cool story and apparently some parts (or the whole thing) is based on a true story!

post #12027 of 16035

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012): 6/10

 
A bittersweet, black romantic comedy about the end of the world, which unfortunately suffers tremendously in the early proceedings from jarring shifts in mood and tone. Still, once you are past the rocky first stages the film blossoms beautifully, without ever forgetting its necessarily cruel edge. I'm not sure that I've seen a recent apocalyptic film that packed more humanity and pathos into it than this one does, and it's all anchored wonderfully by Steve Carell and Kiera Knightly, who make a better, more believable screen couple than you might expect--even if it is a romance born out of desperation. Perhaps that's what makes it realistic. Worth seeing. Unless von Trier's Melancholia scarred you for life. In which case, you may want to take a pass on this one, as well.
post #12028 of 16035
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalsonata View Post

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012): 6/10

 
A bittersweet, black romantic comedy about the end of the world, which unfortunately suffers tremendously in the early proceedings from jarring shifts in mood and tone. Still, once you are past the rocky first stages the film blossoms beautifully, without ever forgetting its necessarily cruel edge. I'm not sure that I've seen a recent apocalyptic film that packed more humanity and pathos into it than this one does, and it's all anchored wonderfully by Steve Carell and Kiera Knightly, who make a better, more believable screen couple than you might expect--even if it is a romance born out of desperation. Perhaps that's what makes it realistic. Worth seeing. Unless von Trier's Melancholia scarred you for life. In which case, you may want to take a pass on this one, as well.


Melancholia wasn't bad at all, it has a different tone.

post #12029 of 16035

Melancholia was sublime. It started trolling with that shake cam but it grew at the same rate as that rock :)

Antichrist I never got into though.

post #12030 of 16035

Last movie....Tinker,Tailor, Soldier,Spy.

 

What a cast! Thankfully, I went into it knowing it was not an action flick, but more of a cerebral film. I had heard from a couple family members that it was hard to follow, but I knew that one of them preferred action movies, and the other had trouble with the English accents. I watched it on my tablet with my HFI-780s so I had no trouble following the dialogue.

 

Upcoming today.....The Hobbit

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Rate The Last Movie You Watched