Tale Posted June 8, 2012 Author Posted June 8, 2012 It's hard to analyze things like that. It could have been anything. Maybe the producer was obsessed with found footage at the time. Maybe the director had an idea for a found footage film and it ended up morphing into something completely different, but he didn't have time to completely revise it. Found footage really only seems to work in horror films. In Chronicle it was just bizarre. Because the footage isn't "found" it's just cam footage. They lose entire cameras with footage in them, but that never stops us from seeing it. "Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Gorgon Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) It's the guy from Cloverfield isn't it. Same deal. Crappy handheld to get you 'in the action' and a huge budget. 'Ohh my god, what the hell was that' followed by the camera doing a detour on the ground. It really starts to get old fast. Edited June 8, 2012 by Gorgon Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all.
Hurlshort Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 It's the guy from Cloverfield isn't it. Same deal. Crappy handheld to get you 'in the action' and a huge budget. 'Ohh my god, what the hell was that' followed by the camera doing a detour on the ground. It really starts to get old fast. Agreed, I think about 10 minutes would be enough, like they could have handled the intro where they go down into the hole with the camcorder, and then moved back to a normal shooting style.
Orogun01 Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 It's the guy from Cloverfield isn't it. Same deal. Crappy handheld to get you 'in the action' and a huge budget. 'Ohh my god, what the hell was that' followed by the camera doing a detour on the ground. It really starts to get old fast. He's on the black list of people I should kill, not because of Cloverfield (which is bad) but because somehow some Hollywood **** decided it would be a good idea to make him the director of the "Shadow of the Colossus" movie. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you.
Kor Qel Droma Posted June 9, 2012 Posted June 9, 2012 I liked Cloverfield. Listening to Hud throughout the movie got old, but I thought it was a fun show, minus the first ten minutes. Jaguars4ever is still alive. No word of a lie.
Orogun01 Posted June 9, 2012 Posted June 9, 2012 Bit of retraction, apparently the director from Cloverfield isn't the same as the one from Chronicle. I still think that SOC deserves better than a shaky cam director who only has one film to his account and the writer from Street Fighter: Legend of Chun-Li. I don't know if boycott this movie or just straight out threaten Hollywood. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you.
Morgoth Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The moment I saw Stellan Slarsgard, I knew he was gonna be the bad guy in the movie. Edited June 10, 2012 by Morgoth Rain makes everything better.
Flouride Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Rudy. I know, old movie and all... Liked it a lot Hate the living, love the dead.
Hurlshort Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Ironclad - I thought this was a decent little medieval period action movie. The main character, a Templar, was Mark Antony on HBO's Rome, and he does a good job as the brooding warrior type. It's a bit of a mess historically, but most of that can be expalined by a small budget making it too hard to put hundreds of people in the battle.
LadyCrimson Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 I'm probably one of the few who doesn't mind the home-video cam or shaky cam in movies that much. Only time it bothers me is if it bobs and spins so much that it looks like a 5 year old on a merry go round is holding the camera for 90 minutes. Yeah, it doesn't always make story-sense that someone is holding a camera the whole time of the film, but then again, it's not sensical that we should be able to see the events going on in a film, anyway (that godly narrative perspective) so I guess I don't care. heh Anyway, last night we watched John Carter. I'm glad I didn't pay to see it in the theater. It wasn't terrible or anything, and I'm sure the effects looked cooler on the big screen, but it was pretty silly and overwrought. The best thing in the film was the "dog." I loved that "dog." I want one. The actors, btw, were not the problem. They seemed mostly fine for what the movie called for, even the guy playing John Carter. “Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts
Blarghagh Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 I saw John Carter as well, and I agree completely with LadyC. The movie... worked, I suppose. It was entertaining. Just kinda stupid. But Woola was hilarious and totally worth watching just for the smattering of scenes it appeared in.
Kor Qel Droma Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Just watched the Hunger Games with my wife. I wasn't all that impressed, but I'll admit I'm blissfully ignorant of the story. I've seen worse films. Jaguars4ever is still alive. No word of a lie.
Gorgon Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Been watching David Attenborough's life of 'x' series. I don't know if it's just that nature programmes don't have the budgets they used to, but there is nothing that really comes close both in footage and narration. He doesn't wrangle snakes or crocodiles or pretend to be surprised to have just discovered the critter he brought wth him in his car like every other American nature show. Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all.
Raithe Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Been watching David Attenborough's life of 'x' series. I don't know if it's just that nature programmes don't have the budgets they used to, but there is nothing that really comes close both in footage and narration. He doesn't wrangle snakes or crocodiles or pretend to be surprised to have just discovered the critter he brought wth him in his car like every other American nature show. The thing with Attenborough, is that he just shines with sincerity about his enthusiasms and the way he explains things. The man has been doing it for decades and he does it dang well. He lets the nature take center without having a need to upstage it with his "performance" and shows that even after all these years he's still amazed and enjoys what he's doing. "Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."
Nepenthe Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The moment I saw Stellan Slarsgard, I knew he was gonna be the bad guy in the movie. Because you had read the book? You're a cheery wee bugger, Nep. Have I ever said that? Reapercussions
Amentep Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 I saw John Carter as well, and I agree completely with LadyC. The movie... worked, I suppose. It was entertaining. Just kinda stupid. But Woola was hilarious and totally worth watching just for the smattering of scenes it appeared in. Since I loved the film, I'm a bit curious as to what you didn't like about it. Lets see I've seen recently since last posting... Prometheus - Thoughtful, suspenseful, interesting plot that connects to the Alien franchise without being an Alien film. Not perfect, but really good. Endless Night - 1972 adaption of one of the few Agatha Christie stories to feature elements of the supernatural. Its a bit slow going, but worth it in the end I think. The locals and the house are pretty neat to behold. Not really creepy enough or true mystery enough I think to have broad appeal. Snow White and the Huntsman - The film does some things really well, but then will have a clumsy sequence that is wince worthy or just confusing. The story is episodic and never really gets the through story moving, IMO. Kristen Stewart will probably get a lot of flack about being in the film, but to be fair she's given very little to do for the vast majority of the film beyond react to what others have done. I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
Orogun01 Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Kristen Stewart will probably get a lot of flack about being in the film, but to be fair she's given very little to do for the vast majority of the film beyond react to what others have done. Same as her other movies, gotcha. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you.
HoonDing Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Snow White and the Huntsman - The film does some things really well, but then will have a clumsy sequence that is wince worthy or just confusing. The story is episodic and never really gets the through story moving, IMO. Kristen Stewart will probably get a lot of flack about being in the film, but to be fair she's given very little to do for the vast majority of the film beyond react to what others have done. Charlize Theron (evil queen) being jealous of Kristen Stewart's (Snow White) "beauty" doesn't really work out well. 2 The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
LadyCrimson Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 KungFu Panda 2. It was "free." Watchable with some cute moments but the 1st was better. And of course, every time the duck-father Ping was on-screen, I kept thinking about Diablo3 (I'm Covetus Shen!)... Charlize Theron (evil queen) being jealous of Kristen Stewart's (Snow White) "beauty" doesn't really work out well. Haven't seen the film, but I'd agree with this. Not that Kristen isn't cute or anything, but .... yeah. “Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts
Amentep Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 (edited) Kristen Stewart will probably get a lot of flack about being in the film, but to be fair she's given very little to do for the vast majority of the film beyond react to what others have done. Same as her other movies, gotcha. Lol, I think this is the first movie I've seen with her in it. *checks credits* Nope I saw her in Cold Creek Manor, but that was almost 10 years ago and I can barely remember that movie much less the small part she'd have had. Charlize Theron (evil queen) being jealous of Kristen Stewart's (Snow White) "beauty" doesn't really work out well. Well to be fair The Queen is actually after her for her spirit; both the Queen and Snow White have magical origins by their mothers with SW's magic in coming of age begins breaking apart the Queens; essentially Snow White is life and the Queen death. If the Queen kills Snow White her magic is restored and she becomes effectively immortal. Edited June 11, 2012 by Amentep I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
Calax Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Just watched the Hunger Games with my wife. I wasn't all that impressed, but I'll admit I'm blissfully ignorant of the story. I've seen worse films. Everything I've seen says that watching it without reading the book is like only knowing half the story. I'm not sure why so many people were gushing over it but it wasn't horrible. Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition! Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.
HoonDing Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 Well to be fair The Queen is actually after her for her spirit; both the Queen and Snow White have magical origins by their mothers with SW's magic in coming of age begins breaking apart the Queens; essentially Snow White is life and the Queen death. If the Queen kills Snow White her magic is restored and she becomes effectively immortal. That does make sense, yes. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
Oerwinde Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 I loved John Carter. Probably the closest I'll get to a big budget He-Man film anyway. It was very well made and you could tell the director was passionate about the source material Saw Iron Sky as well, loved it. Had a huge ****eating grin on my face through the whole thing. Not for everyone, but it didn't disappoint at all. The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.
Blarghagh Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 I watched Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. Better than the first, I feel. The actors and director were obviously more confident - they hit their stride, and Moriarty was excellently played in a low key "Alan Rickman in Die Hard" way. Still, one thing I really missed which the first one did have was the element of mystery - the plot was relatively straightforward and wouldn't have worked if the characters weren't as interesting as they are. Shame, because that did make it seem less like Sherlock Holmes and more like generic action movie with a crazy genius. I saw John Carter as well, and I agree completely with LadyC. The movie... worked, I suppose. It was entertaining. Just kinda stupid. But Woola was hilarious and totally worth watching just for the smattering of scenes it appeared in. Since I loved the film, I'm a bit curious as to what you didn't like about it. See, this is where it gets difficult for me. I usually love pulpy entertainment, things that go for spectacle, and in theory this movie hits all the right notes even if the plot didn't hold together (never bothered me for Star Wars). But it just didn't "do" it for me. All the action scenes, while well crafted, felt flat and I felt no tension. Also, I expected better CG from a Pixar director, the special effects generally took me right out of the film - the CG characters looked like they were made for a full CG movie and then smooshed into a realistic environment.
Amentep Posted June 13, 2012 Posted June 13, 2012 Thanks; I didn't have that experience, but I suppose we all view things differently. Maybe it helped that I've read part of the book series...? I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
Recommended Posts