This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
General Movie Discussion Thread
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
I liked Skyfall, but I was literally falling asleep during the first half. Javier Bardem was awesome, that guy has a knack for villains.
One thing I thought was strange was this ongoing theme about how the older methods of doing things are better, seemed out of place considering the new Bond is kind of a reboot. Made sense considering the ending though.
Post by
Interest
I don't know how I missed this when searching for movies to watch, but
yeah...
I didn't think it was possible, but I just found an animated film that equals or exceeds anything Miyazaki has done.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
So I bought the complete set of all 8 Harry Potter movies for like 30$ off one of those Amazon lightning deals. As much as I love Harry Potter, I just kind of feel like these movies blow.
First off I feel like most of the cast can't act, especially Daniel Radcliffe. The scenes where Sirius and Dumbledore die were supposed to be moving and emotional, and he butchered both of them. He just kind of screws up his face and stands there all rigid, there is zero emotion in his acting. Same deal with this once scene where he shows up at Grimmauld Place and screams at Ron and Hermionne, and in the mocie he just kind of slightly raises his voice.
They also leave out like 50% of what is in the books, and the scenes they do include feel rushed. IMO They should have done what they did with The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones and made a tv show. That way they have 10-12 hours to tell each book instead of 2.
That all being said Emma Watson and the first Dumbledore and Draco Malfoy were pretty good, Ralph Fiennes was masterful as Voldemort, and the people who played Hagrid and Bellatrix were both very good in their roles as well. I'm sure there are others I liked in the series but I forget them atm.
/rant
EDIT: Oh and I didn't like the stylized Tim Burton-ish vibe they gave off either. Excellent soundtrack though...
Post by
Patty
A HP tv show would have absolutely
sucked
, especially if it had been made around the same time as the movies were. The fourth movie was bad, and the fifth and sixth were okay, but overall the franchise was very well-done, imo. Obviously things were missed out, which bugged me, but they were still faithful in tone, character and plot to the source material. That's more than anyone could have hoped for.
Post by
Gone
I think a tv show could have been ok, maybe not if it was done in the 90s... The thing that bugged me the most about the movies (besides the acting) was that it only told the main story of each book (and even then skimmed over a lot), and that's not what Harry Potter was really about. It was about Harry's day to day life in this magical place he found himself in. He lived this boring, mundane life, until he got that letter, and Hogwarts was this new world he could escape to, and that's what made the story so good, because that's kind of what fantasy is for most readers, an escape from the day to day mundane crap. So I feel like a tv show would have even been more natural, being a regular, day to day thing like the feel of Rowling's novels.
To me the fifth and sixth movies may have been the worst, because they were the ones that had the most emotional scenes for Radcliffe to butcher. I liked the third, and the seventh/eighth were ok from what I remember (haven't gotten to those yet in my dvds). IIRC the flashback about the hallows and the three brothers was really well done.
Post by
Adamsm
I know there were issues with the Potter movies; hell, I mumbled about them to myself while watching the things....but that being said: They are good solid movies. They may not be the books but that's alright. As for making a TV series, it wouldn't have been all that viable back then, and well, let's be honest; there would have been a lot of filler and a lot of 'Wake up, go to school, go back to bed' scenes, which really wouldn't have been all that interesting.
It would have been nice if they would have started with the two movies per book at part 4 but oh well; for the time they had for the movies, they did manage to get a majority of the important plot points.
There's also the fact that as much as the 'kids' aged in the movie, it would have been a lot worse for a TV series heh.
Post by
Gone
There's also the fact that as much as the 'kids' aged in the movie, it would have been a lot worse for a TV series heh.
Technically seasons of a tv show are one year apart, and that's how much Harry aged for each book.
Post by
Adamsm
There's also the fact that as much as the 'kids' aged in the movie, it would have been a lot worse for a TV series heh.
Technically seasons of a tv show are one year apart, and that's how much Harry aged for each book.
True...but as seen with a lot of TV series that are made on books, they rarely if ever follow that; the only one that did get away with was the original BBC Chronicles of Narnia, since they had the built in de-ager thing to fix that 'problem'; after all, only 7 years passed book time, yet we went nearly 13 in real time and it shows. It also wouldn't have worked out as simply, since the movies were being made as the book were still coming out.
Post by
Gone
Well I still think it could work. The chick who plays Arya will be 17 by the time Game of Thrones gets to AFFC, where she'll still be playing a ten year old. At least with Harry Potter the characters are
supposed
to get a year older in between books.
Post by
gamerunknown
I didn't like the 5th and 6th Harry Potter books or movies. Completely disjointed from the rest of the storyline, IMO.
Also, I agree on the Adele song, though I was kinda disappointed as to what Skyfall was actually referencing. I thought it was a codename for a mission or something. Not that I oppose having Bond's past fleshed out. Fiennes reprising a spy role after the Avengers is great, too.
Post by
Rystrave
I'd have to agree with Skyfall. I liked it, I totally thought it was Bond-y, and I love the introduction to the new (old) characters. But the actual reference for Skyfall was disappointing. I was hoping it would have been a reference to a failed mission of Bond's that brought more drama and action to the movie.
I did cry when M died. I knew it was gonna happen, and I thought I prepared myself but I'm terrible at holding back water works.
Post by
Gone
So I'm gonna go ahead and add
prequel trilogies
to the list of things that Peter Jackson does better than George Lucas.
The Hobbit started out kind of slow, but it really picked up. by the time they got to the scene with the trolls I was immersed (it helped that my GF and I moved away from the little kid kicking me seat while his parents ate the worlds nosiest potato chips).
Loved the visuals, loved the soundtrack, love all the dwarves, what can I say, nothing I didn't love about the movie.
Well ok some things... Like the cameo at the beginning with Frodo kind of annoyed me, it went on too long, it would have been better to just see him walk through and be done with it.
The references to Sauron as the Necromancer were awesome. Even the things they added that weren't in the book, like the pale orc were really well done.
Post by
Patty
I liked the Hobbit
without
the gratuitous padding that was clearly in it to leave enough for two more films. Really, I feel like it could have been condensed by at least 40 minutes.
Post by
Gone
I liked the Hobbit
without
the gratuitous padding that was clearly in it to leave enough for two more films. Really, I feel like it could have been condensed by at least 40 minutes.
The filler stuff really wasn't all that bad though. The stuff about the pale orc wasn't that far off something Tolkien himself might have done, and the stuff about the Necromancer was in the original book, we just didn't get to actually see it.
Post by
Patty
I liked the expansion of the events in the Mirkwood, with Radagast and the Necromancer. However, Frodo's cameo was too large, and the singing was obvious filler, for immediately glaring examples of gratuitous padding. The cinematography was absolutely gorgeous, and the actors did well in their roles, but it meandered along and dragged for far too long at the start. It had a slower start than Fellowship did, in all honesty, and it's clear that they are trying to give it the scope of LotR. However, even with the appendix expansions, it's clear that there simply is not enough material for something as long as LotR was.
Post by
Gone
I liked the expansion of the events in the Mirkwood, with Radagast and the Necromancer. However, Frodo's cameo was too large, and the singing was obvious filler, for immediately glaring examples of gratuitous padding. The cinematography was absolutely gorgeous, and the actors did well in their roles, but it meandered along and dragged for far too long at the start. It had a slower start than Fellowship did, in all honesty, and it's clear that they are trying to give it the scope of LotR. However, even with the appendix expansions, it's clear that there simply is not enough material for something as long as LotR was.
Agree about Frodo, I liked the singing though.
I'm a bit worried about movie two if they go along at this pace. I'm guessing they'll go from Beorn the mountain in the second movie, then the final movie will be Smaug and the Battle of Five Armies. For the final movie they have plenty of stuff to fill it with, but movie two will be like 70% Mirkwood.
That being said I have a lot of faith in Peter Jackson, he hasn't let us down yet. This movie had a somewhat slow start, but they managed to keep it lively with the dragon flashback, and other than that I thought the movie was great.
One thing I really liked about this movie was that they included all those little tongue in cheek moments that were left out of Lord of the Rings. I thought the trilogy was great, but I was disappointed that some of those scenes were left out.
Kind of like that one scene where Gimli and Legolas have to be blindfolded to get into Lothlorien.
Post by
Monday
That being said I have a lot of faith in Peter Jackson, he hasn't let us down yet. This movie had a somewhat slow start, but they managed to keep it lively with the dragon flashback, and other than that I thought the movie was great.
This.
Also, on the Harry Potter movies: I really, really enjoyed the art style.
Post by
gamerunknown
The only annoyances I found with the Hobbit were that the Goblin King's CGI was a bit jarring and his showdown with Gandalf was far too brief. I couldn't help thinking of the Office when my friend pointed out that the character that played Bilbo was in it.
That said, the song (over mountains etc.) is the best I've heard in a movie in years and I loved the choreography of the fight with the goblins. Don't think I've liked a soundtrack more since Pokémon. the Matrix or the Big Lebowski. My brother said the dwarves singing was a straight rip from the book and he managed to sing the lyrics before the actors did (he read it recently).
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.