Movie review thread...
-
Baytown Outlaws - A few b-grade actors/actresses (Eva Longoria, Zoe Bell, Billy-Bob Thornton, MIchael Rappaport) in a Tarantino-ish movie, lots of gun battles, lots of killing, lots of BS...only an hour and a half, but watchable for a bit of mindless movie watching.
-
-
[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1357856219' post='336571']<br />
Sightseers: sort of a Brit Bonnie & Clyde, except in a caravan. You see a film every now and then that makes you go umm, err, what the holy jeeping fxxk was that? Not so much 'dark' as pitch black when it comes to the comedy and the gore. Cute dog too.<br />
[/quote]<br />
<br />
Been wondering about that film, if you liked that you might like two little boys starring one half of flight on the conchords. That's pretty much how I felt after watching it. -
[quote name='jegga' timestamp='1357522483' post='335876']<br />
Saw Jack Reacher last night, it was good but I wouldn't be gutted if you missed it at the theatre and had to wait for the DVD.<br />
[/quote]<br />
<br />
Watched old Jack Reacharound with a bunch of mates who had read all the books and were whinging about a 5 foot fuck all actor playing someone who is 6'5 but to be honest never having read the books that wasn't an issue for mne. Tom did a decent enough job in a film I basically instantly forgot to be honest. Rosamund Pikes rack was pretty good though. -
Saw Reacher tonight, and having not read the books I enjoyed it immensely. It won't win any awards for being a great film but it did exactly what was advertised on the box. Saw shorts for Gangster Squad, Star Trek 2 and DJango. They all look like a rollicking good time at the cinema. Oh and Emma Stone as a bright redhead looked like a human version of Mrs Roger Rabbit (not as well endowed in the rack area of course) woof!!
-
[quote name='Virgil' timestamp='1357712450' post='336311']<br />
Went and saw The Hobbit in HFR 3D, loved it. Not sure what the negativeness towards the HFR is all about, never bothered me apart from slight feeling of nausea.[/quote]<br />
<br />
To tell you the truth, as much as I loved the LOTR series and Jackson's Kong, I always left the cinema after viewing those feeling exhausted and wiped out, with a touch of a nagging headache. Same thing with most 3D movies - otoh I love 'em, and on the other, they leave me with headaches. <br />
<br />
So I was apprehensive about the HFR Hobbit after the advance notice about the frame rate "debacle" and the over-stuffed long-winded "tediousness" of the convoluted plot and Jackson's "heretical" decision to break the slim novel into three films. Fear not! The pic I saw was perfect, it looked awesome, and there were no headaches. As for the movie itself, I was surprised how quickly it moved. Sure, the opening 45 mins takes it's time establishing characters and exposition (which IMO is as it should be!), but the last 2 hours flew by. I was ready to watch it again straight away.<br />
<br />
There were some problems I had with it (the birds-eye helicopter shot of Radagast and the bunny-sled and Radagast's abominable sense of direction was simply awful and should have been left on the cutting-room floor), but overall I watched it with a big stupid grin on my face the whole time. I'll pay to see it again, I'd like to see it in 48 HFR again, as well as a 2D 24 FPS comparison. 8/10 easily, and like yourself, excitedly looking forward to the next parts. -
Killing them softly; Brad Pitt - I thought it was a bit shit!
-
[quote name='red terror' timestamp='1357921764' post='336717']<br />
To tell you the truth, as much as I loved the LOTR series and Jackson's Kong, I always left the cinema after viewing those feeling exhausted and wiped out, with a touch of a nagging headache. Same thing with most 3D movies - otoh I love 'em, and on the other, they leave me with headaches.<br />
<br />
So I was apprehensive about the HFR Hobbit after the advance notice about the frame rate "debacle" and the over-stuffed long-winded "tediousness" of the convoluted plot and Jackson's "heretical" decision to break the slim novel into three films. Fear not! The pic I saw was perfect, it looked awesome, and there were no headaches. As for the movie itself, I was surprised how quickly it moved. Sure, the opening 45 mins takes it's time establishing characters and exposition (which IMO is as it should be!), but the last 2 hours flew by. I was ready to watch it again straight away.<br />
<br />
There were some problems I had with it (the birds-eye helicopter shot of Radagast and the bunny-sled and Radagast's abominable sense of direction was simply awful and should have been left on the cutting-room floor), but overall I watched it with a big stupid grin on my face the whole time. I'll pay to see it again, I'd like to see it in 48 HFR again, as well as a 2D 24 FPS comparison. 8/10 easily, and like yourself, excitedly looking forward to the next parts.<br />
[/quote]<br />
<br />
Couldnt agree more RT, i loved it. Thought Sir PJ did a great job of linking it to the previous LOTR films with the cameo from Frodo.<br />
Really enjoyed the opening sequence of retelling the tale of Smaug attacking the Dwarf City. Brilliant how he kept Smaug away from view (taking a leaf from Spielberg and Jaws, although for them it was totally accidental!)<br />
Like you said, the nearly 3 hours flew by and never felt the movie dragged at any stage, and thoroughly enjoyed the 3D HFR experience.<br />
If your able to see it in that format i def recommend it. -
Good article on 48fps (HFR) movies. Particularly this bit:<br />
<br />
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2013/01/pain_of_the_new<br />
<br />
[quote]What's going on here? I really struggled to figure out what was happening to my own eyes and my perception that something as simple as changing a frame rate would trigger such drastic re-evaluations of cinema?<br />
<br />
I researched on the web without much satisfaction, since few people had actually seen 48HFR. I asked a few friends in the advance cinema industry and got unsatisfactory answers. Then I was at a party with a friend from Pixar and asked him my question: why does HFR change the appearance of the lighting? He also could not tell me, but the man next to him could. He was [b]John Knoll, the co-creator of Photoshop and the Oscar-winning Visual Effects Director[/b] for a string of technically innovative Hollywood blockbusters as long as my arm. He knew. I'll put his answer into my own words:<br />
<br />
Imagine you had the lucky privilege to be invited by Peter Jackson onto the set of the Hobbit. You were standing right off to the side while they filmed Bilbo Baggins in his cute hobbit home. [b]Standing there on the set you would notice the incredibly harsh lighting pouring down on Bilbo's figure. It would be obviously fake. And you would see the makeup on Bilbo's in the harsh light. The text-book reason filmmakers add makeup to actors and then light them brightly is that film is not as sensitive as the human eye, so these aids compensated for the film's deficiencies of being insensitive to low light and needing the extra contrast provided by makeup. These fakeries were added to "correct" film so it seemed more like we saw. But now that 48HFR and hi-definition video mimic our eyes better, it's like we are standing on the set, and we suddenly notice the artifice of the previously needed aids.[/b] When we view the video in "standard" format, the lighting correctly compensates, but when we see it in high frame rate, we see the artifice of the lighting as if we were standing there on the set.<br />
<br />
Knoll asked me, "You probably only noticed the odd lighting in the interior scenes, not in the outdoors scenes, right?" And once he asked it this way, I realized he was right. The scenes in the HFR version that seemed odd were all inside. The landscape scenes were stunning in a good way. "That's because they didn't have to light the outside; the real lighting is all that was needed, so nothing seemed amiss."<br />
<br />
Now some of the complaints make sense:<br />
<br />
"While striking in some of the big spectacle scenes, predominantly looked like ultra-vivid television video, paradoxically lending the film an oddly theatrical look, especially in the cramped interior scenes in Bilbo Baggins' home." - Todd McCarthy, The Hollywood Reporter<br />
<br />
"Instead of feeling like we've been transported to Middle-earth, it's as if we've dropped in on Jackson's New Zealand set..." - Scott Foundas, Village Voice[/quote] -
Yeah it did feel like at times you were watching a stage play at times rather than a movie. Not a bad thing, it made the experience alot more realistic.
-
Just took Mrs Jack to Les Miserables . Fuck me if I didn't think I was going to a typical musical with half a dozen songs spread throughout the movie , not a three hour movie where the whole movie was being sung . I would rather dip my penis in molten lead than sit through that again . Shame as the story itself was quite a good one .
-
Saw Jack Reacher last night and I love my schlocky action b grade films, but this was awful. <br />
<br />
Had some good moments, but most of the dialogue was cringe worthy, laughable even. <br />
<br />
Rosamind Pike ruined every single scene she was in too. And it's just infantile to frame scenes around her tits. <br />
<br />
A lot was made of Cruises height for this film, and they made it worse by casting too many taller actors. It made the fight scenes comical as he looked like a hobbit. Plenty of short actors in Hollywood they could have used, and it's not something I normally notice with Cruise. <br />
<br />
Avoid, avoid, avoid. -
Not the romantic film you were after then aye <img src='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' /><br />
<br />
The Paperboy - Matthew McConaughey Zac Efron, Nicole Kidman, John Cusack.<br />
<br />
Not too bad, a bit slow, but decent film with a trashy Kidman in love with Cusack who is in prison for murder and on death row, and McConaughey and Efron (brothers) working for a Newspaper trying to prove he is innocent.<br />
<br />
Something about McConaughey movies at the moment? Another couple of rather, odd scenes (not as bad as Killer Joe, but still out there)<br />
<br />
6/10 -
McConaughey has been campaigning hard over the years to be taken seriously as an actor. But when you make movies like Sahara or Surfer Dude, which I might add he financed, it makes it hard for anyone to look at you as a quality character actor.<br />
<br />
But you can see where he's tried to get noticed as something more than the texas drawling pretty boy my wife drool over.<br />
<br />
We Are Marshall, Killer Joe, Dazed and Confused, Reign Of Fire and upcoming The Dallas Buyers Club where he's tried to do a Chritian Bale in the Machinist.<br />
<br />
Probably wants to get Taratino's attention -
TBF Sahara and Surfer dude are quite old....I thought he was good in Lincoln Lawyer too
-
[quote name='taniwharugby' timestamp='1358025990' post='336850']<br />
TBF Sahara and Surfer dude are quite old....I thought he was good in Lincoln Lawyer too<br />
[/quote]<br />
<br />
You pick out those two as old? Dazed and Confused was from the 90's... -
THat was good though....<img src='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />
-
[quote name='taniwharugby' timestamp='1358033499' post='336900']<br />
THat was good though.... <img src='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' /><br />
[/quote]<br />
<br />
Yeah I ignored your point sorry.<br />
<br />
Magic Mike as NTA said is nice and new though isn't it..
