Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums
Sign in to follow this  
tiffuts

Last Movie you watched...

Recommended Posts

It seems that I can watch Lost in Translation over and over again, and it doesn't loose anything. It just keeps getting better. As much I want to keep up my nerd image by declaring movies like the original Star Wars trilogy and Blade Runner as my favorite movies, Lost in Translation might actually be the one favorite movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Its an impressive adventure and a lot of fun movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Its an impressive adventure and a lot of fun movie.

It was a giant turd with no character development, very little story, too many action scenes. Not to mention the extra characters and sidestory they added, while rushing or removing the best scenes from the book

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Its an impressive adventure and a lot of fun movie.

It was a giant turd with no character development, very little story, too many action scenes. Not to mention the extra characters and sidestory they added, while rushing or removing the best scenes from the book

Opinions eh.

Personally I liked it, though it did feel a bit long at times. It was enjoyable to watch overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a giant turd with no character development, very little story, too many action scenes. Not to mention the extra characters and sidestory they added, while rushing or removing the best scenes from the book

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a giant turd with no character development, very little story, too many action scenes. Not to mention the extra characters and sidestory they added, while rushing or removing the best scenes from the book

Not to dismiss your opinion or anything... but it's like this. When I heard Lord of the Rings was being adapted into a movie, I was ecstatic. Climactic battles, epic quest, coming of age, demons, undead, wizards... I knew it was going to be great.

When I heard the Hobbit was going to be adapted, my reaction was more "meh". Not because Tolkien-world had already been done, but because the Hobbit isn't Tolkien's best story by a long shot. It's well-known, yes, but if you read the book from an adult perspective, it has no pacing, no development, no downtime. It just jumps from one adventure to another. Gandalf disappears for some reason and pops up again to say the matter is dealt with and this is never mentioned again. Smaug is this horrible villain until in the very first fight he gets knocked off with an arrow. The reader doesn't even really *see* him do terrible things. The dwarves just kinda vaguely handwave some nastiness. Every problem has a solution that was presented moments before or after the problem, like clockwork so there is never any tension to the story.

Hence, I was not disappointed at all by the Hobbit movies. Because I honestly don't see how they could have been done well while at the same time keeping to even the barest of bare bones of the original story. It was just not a story intended for film, or in fact, any media aside from literature (as can be attested to by the

). However, having said that, I did like the CGI on Smaug a lot and that scene where Bombur busts out of the barrel with his little axes, which got a chuckle from me. I probably would have given the rest of the visuals a thumbs up as well, except I was watching in pathetic 24 fps which makes the whole movie look like it was a direct-to-TV feature.

So while I wouldn't call it *good* by any means, I don't think it could have been significantly better without some even more serious changes to the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a giant turd with no character development, very little story, too many action scenes. Not to mention the extra characters and sidestory they added, while rushing or removing the best scenes from the book

Not to dismiss your opinion or anything... but it's like this. When I heard Lord of the Rings was being adapted into a movie, I was ecstatic. Climactic battles, epic quest, coming of age, demons, undead, wizards... I knew it was going to be great.

When I heard the Hobbit was going to be adapted, my reaction was more "meh". Not because Tolkien-world had already been done, but because the Hobbit isn't Tolkien's best story by a long shot. It's well-known, yes, but if you read the book from an adult perspective, it has no pacing, no development, no downtime. It just jumps from one adventure to another. Gandalf disappears for some reason and pops up again to say the matter is dealt with and this is never mentioned again. Smaug is this horrible villain until in the very first fight he gets knocked off with an arrow. The reader doesn't even really *see* him do terrible things. The dwarves just kinda vaguely handwave some nastiness. Every problem has a solution that was presented moments before or after the problem, like clockwork so there is never any tension to the story.

Hence, I was not disappointed at all by the Hobbit movies. Because I honestly don't see how they could have been done well while at the same time keeping to even the barest of bare bones of the original story. It was just not a story intended for film, or in fact, any media aside from literature (as can be attested to by the

). However, having said that, I did like the CGI on Smaug a lot and that scene where Bombur busts out of the barrel with his little axes, which got a chuckle from me. I probably would have given the rest of the visuals a thumbs up as well, except I was watching in pathetic 24 fps which makes the whole movie look like it was a direct-to-TV feature.

So while I wouldn't call it *good* by any means, I don't think it could have been significantly better without some even more serious changes to the story.

I have to agree on you with that.

I mean you have to give Peter Jackson credit as a director. He at least TRIES to mess around and modernise the formula enough to make these stories engaging to a viewer.

I know a lot of people didn't like his take on King Kong, for instance, but I actually thought he did a great job with that too considering the original material he had to work with.

(This is the guy who made some pretty great cult films on a barebones budget. The man clearly has some skill. (particularily in the special effect side of things. Remember he originally wanted to be only a Producer for the film, not that actual director but no-one wanted to take on the mantle. I think he knows his limitations as a writer/director, he's not going to be making anything heartfelt or poigniant anytime soon, but I think what he does, he does pretty well))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's well-known, yes, but if you read the book from an adult perspective, it has no pacing, no development, no downtime

That's about the thought I had when I threw the Philosopher's Stone in the trash after the last page, never to touch the franchise again. For adults, it's just that some books retain their magic, especially when read before at a young age, and some do not.

When I heard the Hobbit was going to be adapted, my reaction was more "meh".

That's about the thought Peter Jackson must have had as well.

Not because Tolkien-world had already been done, but because the Hobbit isn't Tolkien's best story by a long shot.

It holds up to a lot of what he'd written afterwards, because it's not the same kind of writing. Tolkien tried to adjust the Hobbit to the Lord of the Rings' tone after the success of the latter, but gave up rather soon; it wouldn't be The Hobbit any more, he proclaimed. The story does hold its own ground though, and its vast success in 1937 actually is what made the Lord of the Rings possible. To dismiss the predecessor as a bad story means dismissing the first three steps from Tolkien's ascent to fantasy immortality.

The Hobbit is the book in which Tolkien develops modern fantasy literature out of the childrens' tales he himself read as a child. I almost wrote my master thesis on this kind of genre genesis. And you can see the steps of development, chapter for chapter. As such, it is great, great literature and of course I love this book with a passion. My personal view - highly subjective of course - is to see the Lord of the Rings as a destination and the Hobbit as the journey there, making the "prequel" in fact the greater work. That's just me of course. It could just be interpreted as a mere stepping stone; but I insist that even objectively, it is a huge one.

Gandalf disappears for some reason and pops up again to say the matter is dealt with and this is never mentioned again.

While that is very true and not particularly good storytelling from the look of it, it could be perceived as an early version of the mechanic Tolkien puts to great effect in his later works, infinitely varied. However vast and grand the story at hand gets, there's always another surrounding, vaster, greater and often ancient tale that might come into play. A precursor of Tolkien's trademark 'epic' feel: the stupid little story of the Necromancer banished from his tower, to which the grey wizard must rush.

If a director or writer had decided: "All right, the dwarves need to be robbed of their equalizer and diplomat right now, but I can't do it this way, so how AM I going to do this?", there wouldn't be a problem with the adaptation because the right question was asked. But if you thought the "Gandalf disappears" part in the Hobbit was cheap, imagine how cheap it would be if a director blew up that awkward little excuse for a plot turn, presented with an obvious wink by Tolkien, to literal hours of screen time.

Smaug is this horrible villain until in the very first fight he gets knocked off with an arrow. The reader doesn't even really *see* him do terrible things.

You might want to read "Fire and Water" again. Yet of course, Smaug's status as an admirable foe is indeed not exemplified by showing him in battle, but through his suspenseful conversation with Bilbo, which holds its ground as an impressive part of the novel even today. Think of him as a "Silence of the Lambs" Hannibal Lecter, massively looming and threatening by mere potential until moments before he strikes and disappears.

That might be subjective, of course - and I fully understand why Jackson's fans must be disappointed with it. The director was entirely unable to even describe the main hero's worth to the voyage with any other imagery than ability in battle. Bilbo, who kills only spiders in the book. Bilbo, who misses all but the first seconds of the final battle. In the first movie, apart from killing several 'orcs' ('goblin' is the correct word in the Hobbit) and wargs, Bilbo even saves a dwarfen king with sword in hand, and the story hasn't even started.

Apply wire to Tolkien's dead rotating body and you get a perpetual alternative energy source. How could you expect a character like Smaug handled well by a director who routinely makes warlords out of Hobbits?

The dwarves just kinda vaguely handwave some nastiness. Every problem has a solution that was presented moments before or after the problem, like clockwork so there is never any tension to the story.

Hence, I was not disappointed at all by the Hobbit movies. Because I honestly don't see how they could have been done well while at the same time keeping to even the barest of bare bones of the original story.

Tension is created by compressing and stretching. Compression is way out of Jackson's intellectual abilities, there, I said it. And stretching is something he handles really badly by overdoing it to an absurd degree.

A twelve year old could have devised a better frame story with Bilbo and Frodo or at least rise to Jackson's level. Another director wouldn't have felt the need to squeeze dozens of Lord of the Rings 'stars' into the storyline. Another director wouldn't have tried to squeeze nine plus hours out of a two hour max story. Or violate the narrative with random Lord of the Rings storylines, including Grima fucking Wormtongue.

I'm not sure if an adaptation can do the book justice or be done "well". But every director in existence can make a better adaptation than Jackson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wreck It Ralph.

I (34 years old), really liked it. Not just because of the references, but it really was one the better CG animated movies. Good pace, always funny, great characters, etc. Recommend it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Der Eskimo und die Fette Hoppe, both entertaining.

As for Tolkien, good but also an very overrated author, The Hobbit is a book for children, Lord of the Rings has a number of highs and lows and most people probably never finished reading The Silmarillion. There is better Fantasy around (but generally Fantasy isn't as interesting as SF), like Vance's Dying Earth series, his Lyonesse series, Moorcock's Corum series, Anthony's Split Infinity series and so on and if you're open to mix the genres then there are great books like Gerrold/Niven's The Flying Sorcerers, Farmer's World of Tiers series, ... There exists a couple of good Fantasy but they're less known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw 12 Years a Slave.

Very powerful and an important film, I say important because even though there are certainly a lot of films that cover American racial issues which can give you a false impression that a film like this has been "done before" - when you actually stop and think about it, there really aren't that many films about slavery in America. Regardless, not only did this film teach me about a lot of things I didn't know about slavery but it also really drove home to me how profoundly messed up the whole thing was - it seems so obvious like duh - of course it sucks to be a slave - but this film just really made me stop and think, without even directly saying it but just by existing, that it is like - so f*cked up that that all of the choices we have in life today and the rights we have - if you were black back then all of that could just be taken out of your hands, that's what just seemed so messed up to me, SOMEBODY ELSE is deciding all that sh*t for you. I dunno it does seem like an obvious thing about slavery I guess but this film just really drove it home to me.

Aside from that as others have said, I like how (with the exception of a few needed, but realistic incredibly f*cked up characters) this film doesn't go out of it's way as a lesser film might to portray the participants in slavery as brutal monsters that all love cruelty or some bs like that. Rather, this film chooses to show it as a system of normal people who just don't really care. I'm repeating what another commented said about this film here, but what's scary about most of the people in this film isn't how cruel some of them are, it's how many people in this just watch this stuff in it with absolutely NO reaction at all.

But the film also makes this point with the supposedly "nice" ones. Benedict Cumberbatch plays one of Solomen's owners who treats him with some kindness and even appreciates and make use of Solomen's education. We fall into the same trap here that Solomen does, of warming up to Benedict and likely leaving the film commenting something like "Oh - he wasn't so bad, he was nice!". But as another slave points out to him, and is really true when you stop to think about it: not really. It doesn't mean sh*t that Benedict's character is nice in the film, because at the end of the day he's still a slave owner that owns Solomen's freedom, and Solomen is still a slave.

Anyway as you can probably tell I liked this film a lot in whatever way "liking" could be used to describe such a dark film. The only thing I wasn't really crazy about was the soundtrack. I thought that a lot of the scenes that didn't use any music at all were more effective than the ones that did. And the repeating theme of the film is just something Hans Zimmer ported over from "Time" from Inception. And really, really? Hans Zimmer!?! A dramatic historical movie about slavery, that is probably suited to a sad violin score like Schindler's List or something - and you pick the guy known for bombastic action movie themes who hasn't been able to write a melody without two or three ghost writers for years!?!??

I went off topic, I like the Inception Soundtrack as much as anyone, no disrespect Hans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Its an impressive adventure and a lot of fun movie.

It was a giant turd with no character development, very little story, too many action scenes. Not to mention the extra characters and sidestory they added, while rushing or removing the best scenes from the book

Opinions eh.

Personally I liked it, though it did feel a bit long at times. It was enjoyable to watch overall.

I just saw this today myself, I thought that they did a good job incorporating the extra characters in it. I just think some extra parts didn't need to be in it, but It was some nice touches. All in all I think this was better than the first part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lone Ranger

You know this film is going to suck when the very first thing you see is set at a carnival in 1933 (specifically, a Wild West Experience exhibit) and features what I THINK is Johnny Depp in old-man make-up trading a kid's popcorn for a dead mouse.

...it's bad. Appallingly, shockingly, legendarily bad.

And you HAVE to see it.

Not even kidding. You need to rent this on whatever the hell kids rent movies on these days and sit through the entire thing. It is a spectacular masterclass on how NOT to make a blockbuster movie. Every single thing is done wrong here. Every. Single. One.

...it's glorious in how awful it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched Gravity, good movie! Such movies suggest an idea. The situation to which astronauts got, really terrifies. In 99.9% no chance to get back home. There is no place to wait for the help in the infinite space. Even the man with nerves of steel and muscles of iron could begin to panic. Sorry for my English guys. I'm not a native English speaker,so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's meant to left to interpretation. I'm of the opinion that the title refers to the room that the viewer watches the film, as you will always remember it because of your life changing experience in that room.

tumblr_luexhgMgKY1qmaa05o1_400.gif

tumblr_lubk0czDLW1qzniuko1_500.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wolf of Wall Street, don't understand the hype, Scorsese made much better movies than this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's meant to left to interpretation. I'm of the opinion that the title refers to the room that the viewer watches the film, as you will always remember it because of your life changing experience in that room.

tumblr_luexhgMgKY1qmaa05o1_400.gif

tumblr_lubk0czDLW1qzniuko1_500.gif

Let's see about that. "puts on dvd'' IT'S SO MAGICAL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved Melancholia, I'm going to quote my post from a while ago because it's got the beginning from it and hopefully it will inspire someone to watch it.

I watched Melancholia tonight it was really interesting. It was really depressing on the outside but uplifting on the inside, here's the opening sequence, it will probably pique most of your curiosity:

9UkBTrFRhKk

As you can tell the world ends and a lot of the movie is about how the characters deal with it. I thought it kind of reminded me of a less funny, more cinematic Wes Andersen movie. So I guess the only thing it has in common with a Wes Andersen movie is how dry it is and how depressingly uncomfortable it can be.

Anyways like I said I loved that movie. That movie (and Wes Andersen movies) remind me a lot of my family. Very relatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally saw Flushed Away, which I got it in a double pack with Shark Tale for $5. It was good fun, and definitely lived up to my expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scream 3.

Yep. It still sucks. I'm just looking out for you guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched Idiots and Angels yesterday. All the animation was watercolour which was kind of cool, and there was no dialogue. It was about a guy that grows wings. I guess the point was to take a look at human behavior. I don't think I'll watch it again.

Today I saw Zeitgeist which kind of made my head hurt. When there's a documentary that tries to cover that much stuff there's really not enough time to prove anything that they say they just sort of say something and then you have to choose whether you're going to take this whole conspiracy theory seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...