Movies you've seen recently

[Lexx]

Hitch****'s The Birds was p.cool, imo.

 

Good that the planned remake of it didn't worked out.

 

 

/Edit: Oh lawl. Poor Alfred. Can't get his name on this boards.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Lexx

[LadyCrimson]

There was that mock video about "If Doom was made today" ... I can imagine a similar humor video made about "If The Birds was made today." 

 

The suspense/effects don't hold up well today, and it may make one giggle occasionally now, but I still like The Birds. The point of having no explanation is something I like in stories at times. As Stephen King once blathered about re: short stories vs. long novels ... "sometimes things can still happen in a story just because they do." (paraphrasing)

[Tale]

Battle of the Five Armies

 

There's a good movie in there somewhere, it just needs the bad movie to be cut out. I've excused the love subplot in the last movie, but there's no excuses anymore. It's not subtle, they beat you in the face with it repeatedly. The weasely guy from Laketown does nothing but provide bad comedy. The Dol Guldur plot which is the big addition to the Hobbit tale ends right after the film begins and is completely irrelevant to the rest of it. The only good thing about the Dol Guldur arc is finally seeing Saruman, Galadriel, and Elrond fight.

 

There needs to be a fan edit of this trilogy. Radagast can pretty much be cut completely from the film. There's only two places he's contributing, when he tries to distract the orcs from the Dwarves and fails (can be cut completely) and when he helps Gandalf escape from Dol Guldur. But if Dol Guldur gets cut, there's not even a loss there.

 

I don't mind Tauriel, but the love subplot needs to go. And with this movie, that's her entire role in the plot. But since she saves Killi in the second film, whose illness explains why several dwarves stay behind, she will need to be established, but then trimmed heavily.

 

Some of the heavier action scenes can be trimmed down. Escape from Goblin town needs to be half as long to a third the length. Bombur's barrel action scene can be cut, too, but probably not necessary.

 

Dol Guldur needs to be trimmed if not cut out entirely. Giving a reason why Gandalf just before Mirkwood is nice, but doesn't play into the main plot enough.

 

 

 

To be positive, I loved Azog in this movie. He was unimpressive as a Warg Rider, but he's cool as a general. Thorin, Bard, and Bilbo all shine.

[Starwars]

I thought it was pretty terrible. The Hobbit movies feel like a complete mess all in all I think. The LOTR ones feel grand and "epic". With The Hobbit it's like they wanted to transpose the "fairy-tale" feel of the book to screen but in the end just ended up doing a sorta kids movie, mixed with the epicness of the LOTR movies. It just feels off.

That and the fact that they're drawing out a single book (which was not particularly deep) to three movies, with a lot of unnecessary added stuff and loads of padding.

 

I dunno, despite changes from the book and all that jazz I thought the LOTR movies did an excellent job of bringing the books to life. It felt like they cared about the material. The Hobbit doesn't feel like that at all. They feel... cheap.

 

I thought the first two were alright as kinda adventure movies. This final one was pretty damn crappy though.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Starwars

[Tale]

I don't think a more loyal adaption to the book could have been done well with only 1 movie, anyway. Two modest length movies would work. But the tone is definitely one of the problems it has, mixing being kids movies with LOTR style fantasy epics.

[Starwars]

I agree that two movies could've worked very well. Three is *really* stretching it.

[LadyCrimson]

I loved LotR trilogy, still occasionally re-watch parts of from my extended DVD's.

I tried to like the Hobbit but barely sat through the 1st and turned off the 2nd somewhere half way through when I paid for it on VoD. It probably would help if it was just two films, but eh...maybe not even then. Possibly a case of seen the same already, and much better done. Couldn't feel it at all.

 

----------------

Last night I watched Sabotage, the Arnuuulllld movie. I'd heard it was terrible, but I figured hey, it's still an Arnuulllld movie, right. I mean, I even had a light enjoyment from that Last Stand one.

But it is, indeed, terrible. I almost turned it off twice. Then I think I zoned out for 15 minutes because suddenly it was the end of the film and I couldn't remember how they got there. Arnuuullld did get in one amusing line and he wasn't the problem. Anyway...dull and terrible script.

 

Also, from his imdb page, I see he's set to be Conan again. How's that going to work? Sure he's in decent shape for his age, but it's one thing to lift uzi's and smirk while firing canons, and another to be Conan, the geriatric years?

[Valsuelm]

The last good Arnuuuulllld movie was over 20 years ago: Terminator 2. There's been a couple since that were mildly amusing, like True Lies, but they weren't good. There are many good ones prior to T2 though.

[Volourn]

The Hobbit > LOTR

[LadyCrimson]

The last good Arnuuuulllld movie was over 20 years ago: Terminator 2. There's been a couple since that were mildly amusing, like True Lies, but they weren't good. There are many good ones prior to T2 though.

T2 (and T1) is still my fave, yes. I did like True Lies a fair bit, although that was because I personally found Tom Arnold's chr. really funny for some reason (he's not exactly one of my fave actors normally...).

 

 

The Hobbit > LOTR

There were plenty of parts of LotR that weren't my favorite things/were pretty silly. But overall I found it more glibly entertaining.

 

The CGI wolf/worf/whatever riding bad guy in Hobbit was just ...no. That scene with the party in the tree made me lol. I did like some of the quieter dwarf scenes, and Martin Freeman I always like. The films just either put me to sleep or made me roll my eyes, mostly.

[Luridis]

Looks like I won't be seeing this... I hate the world a little more each and every day, what a piece of work humanity is.

 

http://www.cnet.com/news/sony-cancels-the-interview-release/

[sorophx]

they canceled it because there had been a precedent in court where a theater owner had been held liable for a shooting in his theater. so now that there's a big chance something will go down during the screening, owners are bailing out, understandably 

[Valsuelm]

they canceled it because there had been a precedent in court where a theater owner had been held liable for a shooting in his theater.

 

Which case was that?

[sorophx]

[Valsuelm]

 

That's actually not factual. What bad reporter wrote that article? And who links a .png for a source?

 

The judge refused to fully dismiss (he did partially dismiss) the case stating that the decision of whether the theater is liable or not should be left up to a jury. The judge really isn't setting any precedent here. The jury however can. The case hasn't gone to trial yet, and even if a jury ultimately finds Cinemark liable, which is unlikely, it will only set precedent in Colorado. Other jurisdictions might look to that precedent but they will not be legally bound to adhere to it nor even consider it.

 

It's likely going to take a monumental failure of a defense team and jury that puts their sympathy for the victims above reality and that of the company for Cinemark to be found liable. That said, there is one aspect of the case that could prove very interesting and where I can see a jury might find Cinemark liable, and that's if one or more of the plaintiffs makes the case that the 'gun free zone' policy of the theater contributed to the victims losing their rights and full ability to defend themselves versus the perpetrator. If that is brought up in court the case could set some very interesting precedent indeed, and the 'abolish the gun free zones' movement would gain a lot of traction. However, it's very possible that Cinemark and the plaintiffs would just settle the case before trial, in which case no legal precedent whatsoever will be set.

 

And all of that said, the case really has no bearing on any rational theater owner's decision to not show the film. Unlike the Colorado shooting there is a clear threat made that something bad may happen. Ignoring that would make theaters liable in the eyes of many folks, no matter what the Colorado jury ultimately determines in the Aurora case. And regardless of liability I'm sure the owners of the various theaters aren't looking to have to rebuild them or have anyone get hurt either, employees or patrons.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Walsingham]

I don't know if what Valsuelm said is true, but he said it really REALLY well.

[Gorgon]

The Hobbit > LOTR

The Volourn©  quality assessment is 100% correct as usual. Adjust for up being down,  black being white, left..etc.

 

Acutually they are all pretty meh. Except the first LotR movie, I liked that one a lot. 

[sorophx]

That's actually not factual. What bad reporter wrote that article? And who links a .png for a source?

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26346801/federal-judge-rules-aurora-theater-shooting-was-foreseeable

[Blarghagh]

Yeah, the Hobbit. Um. Even as someone who liked most of the first two films as an overblown adventure, this one wasn't much of a payoff. It was well-paced compared to the others and it had a couple of cool things but none of it was especially great. It wasn't bad either, just aggressively mediocre. And Alfrid, oh Alfrid. If he had been killed off it would have been very satisfying but as it stands he is now the Jar Jar of this movie.

 

An assortment of thoughts from during the movie:

 

- Wow, that dragon attack we waited a year for was certainly over before I blinked.

 

- When did Galadriel become the girl from The Ring?

 

- Wormsign? Why on earth have we got wormsign?

 

- What is up with that blinded albino troll with only prosthetic limbs?

 

- Legolas discovers the ultimate stairmaster.

 

- How did a horizontally floating orc just do a vertical launch straight through ice?

 

EDIT: Oh yeah, where did those Rams come from? They just appeared out of thin air!

Edited December 20, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[LadyCrimson]

Oculus, a horror type movie mostly notable for having that actress from Battlestar Galactica in it. The film has a terribly distracting present/past flip-flopping merge style, but it was kinda amusing to see Katee Sackhoff acting like a rabid zombie dog or something.

[Amentep]

Oculus, a horror type movie mostly notable for having that actress from Battlestar Galactica in it. The film has a terribly distracting present/past flip-flopping merge style, but it was kinda amusing to see Katee Sackhoff acting like a rabid zombie dog or something.

 

Karen Gillian (Amy Pond from Doctor Who) got the lions share of the press for the film.  Sackhoff has a nice turn, but its a small part really. 

 

I liked the film other than the characters not realizing the basic flaw in their plans (but I felt the film set up why Gillian's character wouldn't see the flaw).

 

For me I watched:

THE CASE OF THE VELVET CLAWS (1936) - Its easy to see why Mason creator Earle Stanley Gardner hated the Warren William series; they take the basic idea of the books and mix them with "Thin Man"-esque boozy comedy and romance.  They're fun if taken as a Warren WIlliam mystery series of the (he was in several good ones in the 30s and 40s) but fail as adaptions of the book.  This one also includes a weird running gag about everyone catching a cold.  Also this film series may be the most I've ever seen character actor Olin Howland in my life (typically a comedic side-kick in westerns; his last role was the old man who find the meteor in the original THE BLOB)

 

MACABRE (1958) WIlliam Castle (The Tingler) gives us a story of a man - a doctor - whose daughter is kidnapped.  A phone call says she's buried alive.  The town hates the man and won't help him (and/or are suspects) so he must figure out what happened with only the help of his trusted nurse and his former father in law.  Its a gripping tale, well told and easy to keep an audience guessing.  Also has an unusual flashback scene explaining the towns animosity towards the doctor where Jim Backus delivers a beat down to him.  This is the first movie by Castle to use a gimmick, this one an admonishment of the audience to "watch over" each other in case someone becomes too frightened by the movie.  It also asks for no one to tell the end reveal, which I shall honor.

 

THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF PUSS IN BOOTS (1969 aka Nagagutsu o Haita Neko) - saw this once as a kid and hadn't seen it since.  Pero, the swashbuckling cat, is chased by a trio of assassins out to kill him for not eating a baby mouse.  His daring and helpful nature ends up with him trying to help a miller's son whose brothers are cheating him by getting him married to a princess - who happens to have caught the eye of a magician ogre.  Lots of run around and silly fun stuff.  Miyazaki was an animator on the film (as was several other soon to be famous animators).  Its easy to see why Pero became the mascot for Toei Animation.

 

SON OF KONG (1933) - rushed into production, this sequel has some things going for it (Robert Armstrong back as Denham, Helen Mack as a new character who gets involved in the story).  It takes a long time to get back to Skull Island though and the animation feels rushed (which it probably was since this film came out later the same year as King Kong did).

Edited December 22, 2014 by Amentep

[LadyCrimson]

Those of us who don't watch Dr. Who may have no idea who that is/don't recognize her from Adam, so Sackhoff is the most prominent thing. So many people I have no idea they're already famous, these days.

[Orogun01]

"THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF PUSS IN BOOTS"

Well that brings back a ****load of memories of when I was young and had hair.

[Nonek]

 

Also, from his imdb page, I see he's set to be Conan again. How's that going to work? Sure he's in decent shape for his age, but it's one thing to lift uzi's and smirk while firing canons, and another to be Conan, the geriatric years?

 

There are a few Conan short stories set in the Cimmerians twilight years when he sat upon the throne of Aquilonia, I believe some of them were adapted from King Kull short stories, Howard's earlier Atlantean hero king.

 

I too share your doubts however, it could be interesting if they focus on a strong theme, such as Conan's iron will sustaining his faltering, failing body as he is beset on all sides. His shoulders bowed under regrets, losses, old injuries and too many duplicitous enemies vying for his crown. I don't think that it will take such risks however, or plumb the depths of Howards frantic imaginings and dark mythos. Sadly I also think that it would take a better actor than Arnold to pull that off as well, unless the directors knows how to take advantage of the characters silence, like Mr Milius did in the original and Mr Cameron did in the Terminator.

 

They certainly have enough material to borrow from however.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Nonek

[Gorgon]

"THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF PUSS IN BOOTS"

 

Well that brings back a ****load of memories of when I was young and had hair.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448694/

That was 3 years ago