Movies

[Pickers35]

Looks like the speech writer does most of the work for Producer/Director Michael Bay.... Just tell us what you think Michael.

 

[spook]

The explosives guy is the busiest bee on a Michael Bay set.

 

[pahoffm]

I think Jackson should've either stuck closely to the book and made just the one film, or gone the other way and changed the story. In short, you need narrative tension if you're gonna give us three films. A couple of dwarf deaths, as much as that would offend Tolkien acolytes, would greatly enhance the danger of this version of Middle Earth.

As it is, the first two installments of this trilogy are an awkward blend of the old and the new. Look at the climax of both. In the first, the Jackson-created Azog is not killed and the dwarves escape *yet again* on eagles. In the second, we build up to Smaug gradually and can't wait for the payoff. The dragon isn't slain and the dwarves are simply left hanging. Yes, I know Smaug has a further role to play. But the story simply loses power when made to be episodic like this.

Awful, awful climaxes narratives. As a spectacle, the Smaug sequence is a masterpiece. But because Jackson has opted for three films, the second film payoff is a real letdown.

To me it is NOT a bad reflection on Jackson.

We almost missed out on seeing this film at all.
If you recall the history of the making of this film set, it was a project abandoned mid-stream by its original director, Guillermo Del Toro.
Jackson was called in to take over as director to salvage or resurrect the project.
I think he's done a fantastic job, and to ensure the financial success of the project, it had to appeal to more than just Tolkien fans.
The Lord of the Rings wasn't completely to the text so I didn't expect The Hobbit to be that way either.

I've enjoyed both episodes of The Hobbit so far.
If these succeed in making my wife more enthusiastic about The Hobbit too, then that makes me happier.

As a rider, the following may be Wikipedia, but it is an interesting insight into its making.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_(film_series)

Also interesting is the recent history of New Line Cinema
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Line_Cinema

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Apologies KR I was actually stickin' up for another poster!

But yeah, Hollywood is a strange beast.

No apologies necessary I call as I see it. Some actors do seem to be able to pull a stinker out of the mud, usually only as far the kerb, others can shine above it giving a memorable performance while the *smile* as a (w)hole remains unpolished. It is harder to tell with directors because if they pull it off we'll never know what pile of *smile* they started with.

As an eighties kid I had to watch Transformers, the slow pan shots of the toe-thumbed princess didn't hurt either. But I can't understand why the effects have to be so over the top? Most of the masturbatory action sequences are so overwrought with close ups and impossible camera angles that there is no way to take in what is really happening. This might seem a bit high brow for a Micheal Bey critique but it just gets so nuts and the cost of rendering it must have been astronomical but "imaging" is wasted if you can't actually see anything is it?

 

[tigertim]

Sheesh, all I said was PSH doesn't make dud movies......... :spin

Anyway, watched RED 2 and quite enjoyed. Looks like the kind of movie they would have enjoyed making.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Sheesh, all I said was PSH doesn't make dud movies......... :spin

Anyway, watched RED 2 and quite enjoyed. Looks like the kind of movie they would have enjoyed making.

I haven't him seen put in a bad performance, Charlie Wilson's War is my current favourite.

 

[AngryAnt]

Apologies KR I was actually stickin' up for another poster!

With friends like that, who needs enemies :hihi

 

[AngryAnt]

Sheesh, all I said was PSH doesn't make dud movies......... :spin

Actors don't make movi :hihi

TBF I can't think of too many bad PSH films but for me his physical appearance tends to overwhelm his characterisations... so in The Master I saw PSH, while Joaquin Phoenix was almost unrecognisable with his hunch, tics, emaciated body, verbal oddities etc... PSH does have the talent to pick a good script though (and works with good directors).

 

[tigergollywog]

The Movies thread in meltdown. Whats going on at tigerland? Must be Nothin' artyfest

Dont you reckon PSH looks like that unfunny bloke who did the lame bogan footy fan skit on one of the crap commercial TV footy shows?

 

[Carter]

I think phantom mentioned In Cold Blood -- easily PSH's best moment IMO.

That movie was insanely good.

He was also good in MI:3 ;D

 

[Coburgtiger]

Yes, must admit that I was a bit surprised at seeing Legolas in film version of The Hobbit. Can't seem to mentally picture his character when recollecting the book.

I thought it was still a very good film though.

I must say that I am enjoying the hobbit movies more than I thought I would. It's very odd, because I consider myself a purist when it comes to book adaptations, and it always has frustrated me when movies move too far from the books. Case in point, the ridiculously tedious ending to the third LOTR movie.

A decent movie adaptation of the book would have been to finish the series with the oddly erotic bed dance after Frodo and Sam are saved by the eagles. Instead the movie drags on for another half hour. Which is fine, if you include the actual story from the book. A great last chapter where the hobbits get back to the Shire and it's overrun by Orcs, and now that Merry and Pippin are massive bad-asses, they rally the hobbits of the Shire to fight for their own territory. It's an excellent little ending to the series that shows the completion of four character arcs, and a circularity to the story. But Jackson decided to scrap all of that and have Frodo stare lovingly at Sam for thirty minutes.

Anyway, I was very worried about splitting the hobbit (A book half the size of one of the three books in the LOTR trilogy) into three three hour movies, but I think they're doing a really good job with it. I've read the hobbit and LOTR about 45 million times and I'm actually enjoying what's been added to the story.

The tone is actually very interesting, as the tone of the book is quite dark, but never oppressively so, as in LOTR. Where there is a depression in LOTR in that every character assumes they will be dead or enslaved by the end, the Hobbit was always more of an adventure story, there was always going to be a 'there, and back again'. So the odd invulnerability of the Dwarves and the larger than life characters of the Goblin King, Radagast etc actually fit really well. Legolas being part of the Tree elves fits with the mythology, and the extended plotline of the necromancer is interesting. It would be more annoying if, like in the book, Gandalf just kept disappearing with vague references to why he's inconveniently not there every time the Dwarves are in trouble.

Anyway, interested to see how they finish it.

 

[AngryAnt]

A decent movie adaptation of the book would have been to finish the series with the oddly erotic bed dance after Frodo and Sam are saved by the eagles. Instead the movie drags on for another half hour. Which is fine, if you include the actual story from the book. A great last chapter where the hobbits get back to the Shire and it's overrun by Orcs, and now that Merry and Pippin are massive bad-asses, they rally the hobbits of the Shire to fight for their own territory. It's an excellent little ending to the series that shows the completion of four character arcs, and a circularity to the story. But Jackson decided to scrap all of that and have Frodo stare lovingly at Sam for thirty minutes.

Yeah, that was a great ending to the Return of The King - Saruman, having has lost his magic, has become a cheap standover hoodlum going by the name of Sharkey and has a party of evil men and hobbits (including Grima Wormtongue) running standover rackets and generally terrorising the Shire, our hobbit heroes return and kick arse. HOBBITS GONE WILD

 

[Carter]

Rush is very underrated from last year. Daniel Bruhl as Niki Lauda deserves a Supporting Nom.

Just an all round great sports movie, even if you don't particularly like F1.

 

[spook]

I saw Gravity 3D at IMAX last night. Visually amazing, keeps the tension pretty well and Sandra Bullock is excellent.

 

[Pickers35]

Punch Drunk Love is my favourite from Phillip Seymour Hoffman with Adam Sandler in a rare good moment.
The movie 'Her' looks like the first one for me to see this year.

 

[AngryAnt]

Phillip Seymour Hoffman

Paul Thomas Anderson?

:hihi

 

[tigers80]

American Hustle thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

[pahoffm]

Rush is very underrated from last year. Daniel Bruhl as Niki Lauda deserves a Supporting Nom.

Just an all round great sports movie, even if you don't particularly like F1.

Is Rush the film about F1 car racing during the 1970s, including James Hunt?

I meant to see this film but didn't quite get around to it, then forgot what it was called.

 

[pahoffm]

I must say that I am enjoying the hobbit movies more than I thought I would. It's very odd, because I consider myself a purist when it comes to book adaptations, and it always has frustrated me when movies move too far from the books. Case in point, the ridiculously tedious ending to the third LOTR movie.

A decent movie adaptation of the book would have been to finish the series with the oddly erotic bed dance after Frodo and Sam are saved by the eagles. Instead the movie drags on for another half hour. Which is fine, if you include the actual story from the book. A great last chapter where the hobbits get back to the Shire and it's overrun by Orcs, and now that Merry and Pippin are massive bad-asses, they rally the hobbits of the Shire to fight for their own territory. It's an excellent little ending to the series that shows the completion of four character arcs, and a circularity to the story. But Jackson decided to scrap all of that and have Frodo stare lovingly at Sam for thirty minutes.

Anyway, I was very worried about splitting the hobbit (A book half the size of one of the three books in the LOTR trilogy) into three three hour movies, but I think they're doing a really good job with it. I've read the hobbit and LOTR about 45 million times and I'm actually enjoying what's been added to the story.

The tone is actually very interesting, as the tone of the book is quite dark, but never oppressively so, as in LOTR. Where there is a depression in LOTR in that every character assumes they will be dead or enslaved by the end, the Hobbit was always more of an adventure story, there was always going to be a 'there, and back again'. So the odd invulnerability of the Dwarves and the larger than life characters of the Goblin King, Radagast etc actually fit really well. Legolas being part of the Tree elves fits with the mythology, and the extended plotline of the necromancer is interesting. It would be more annoying if, like in the book, Gandalf just kept disappearing with vague references to why he's inconveniently not there every time the Dwarves are in trouble.

Anyway, interested to see how they finish it.

I agree.

And, there are some films that I recall were far better than the books from which they were derived.

Not all but some!

 

[skybeau]

I've enjoyed both Hobbit films. I think someone said earlier that they don't like the lighter tone the films take, but I like it because it fits closer to the book. Mind you, I really wanted to see the scene when Gandalf gradually introduces the dwarves to Beorn, but oh well.

Unfortunately, I don't think Tauriel is a great addition. She feels tokenistic, to add a love interest/side story when there was none and one wasn't really necessary. I cringed when she first made eyes at Fili/Kili (whichever it was).