Movies, v. 2012
Remember to post spoiler warnings, please!
Continued from Movies, v. 2009.2.
Date: March 17, 2012
Categories: The Universe, Things We like
Thursday, 25 April 2024
Life, the universe, pies, hot-pink bunnies, world domination, and everything
Remember to post spoiler warnings, please!
Continued from Movies, v. 2009.2.
Date: March 17, 2012
Categories: The Universe, Things We like
On the previous thread, you were discussing The Hunger Games.
Indeed. And it’s currently at 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, with 15 reviews so far and an 8.3/10 average.
I won’t be seeing it on the weekend, mostly because the theater’s going to be full of screaming teenage girls, but I’ll definitely go see it, maybe over spring break.
Inception. I just rewatched it. Most of it.
I also watched The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy a few nights ago. THOSE MOVIES. They are pretty awesome.
Bourne and Inception are my favorites….
Oh my goodness. I am so excited for The Hunger Games. My English Teacher is taking all of us to see the movie–we did book reviews on the book.
I usually get ticked off when I watch movies made out of books, and I see every single thing that’s different from the books, and why it shouldn’t be. Etc. Strangely, however, I don’t think that’s going to happen with this movie. I didn’t think the book was perfect; there were a lot of things about it that could have been improved. I think that might prevent me from becoming angry at the movie.
Also, all of the actors look exactly like what I pictured them as. Which is weird. But whatever, because I had clear images in my head of the characters, and that translated to the actors pretty well. I know my RL friends have been saying that Cinna looked nothing like what they pictured him as, but he looked pretty similar to what I thought to me.
Fangirl glee, this is lovely.
I’m really excited too. Team Gale, for the record, though I hate to relate The Hunger Games to the dreaded book in any way.
My sister is going to the midnight showing. I kind of want to, but my parents won’t let me, I have a test the next day, and I prefer my theaters with a few seats not full.
I’ve never understood what the whole “Team ___” actually means. Is it who we find more interesting to read about (in my case, that would be about equal), who we think is a better person (my answer would be Peeta here), who we find more attractive (um, I’m definitely just not attracted to either character at all), or who we would prefer Katniss to have ended up with (Gale)? In the Hunger Games, I think it might be the latter more often than any of the others, but the dreaded book often relates more to the one before it, for some reason…
It’s who you’d prefer the main character (in this case, Katniss) to end up with.
I just don’t understand why the Team thing is being thrown in here at all. That’s not the point of the book! The actors themselves stated as much. Are we trying to equate things to “the dreaded book”? (hee hee, that’s making me think things like, ‘the-book-that-must-not-be-named’ )
I was just trying to express the sentiment that I would prefer Gale to end up with Katniss over Peeta.
The only person I wouldn’t mind Katniss ending up with would be Cinna.
Personal ships aside, I would be horrified if the movies strayed so far from the series as to have her end up with anyone she didn’t in the books. MINOR SPOILER ABOUT WHICH BOOK HER RELATIONSHIP PROBLEMS ARE SETTLED IN THAT DOESN’T ACTUALLY SAY WHO SHE ENDS UP WITH Of course, in the movies, she won’t end up with anyone until the third.
Hunger Games and Catching Fire – MUST BE EXACTLY FAITHFUL TO THE BOOKS
Mockingjay – Nyeh, I hated the book so much, I wouldn’t care if they scripted an entirely new ending.
That kind of mirrors my thinking. I really thought Mockingjay was disappointing.
Am I the only person who actually liked Mockingjay? I hated it as much as most people when I first read it, but upon a second reading, everything just fit. Was it the best book in the series? No. Was it a great way to end it? Oh, yes.
I liked it very much the first time I read it, actually.
I just watched Forrest Gump, a movie I’ve always wanted to see. Which gets me thinking, of course. There are some classic movies that everyone should see because they’re classic. Why don’t we start a list? Now, to be clear, there is a difference between a classic and a personal favorite, but here’s what I have so far (no kids movies).
Pulp Fiction (If parents approve)
Blazing Saddles
Forrest Gump
Fight Club
The Matrix
Ferris Bueller’s Day Off
I can’t think of others right now-I kind of have a headache. Add more!
The Breakfast Club
Groundhog Day
Star Wars (Original Trilogy)
West Side Story
My Cousin Vinny (Well it’s a classic in my family at least–New Yorkers)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Benny and Joon
The Sting
My 7K day is on March 23th when The Hunger Games opens! I am not going to be seeing it then, obviously, since the theaters are certainly booked, but I will see it this summer when I get back to the States. My younger brother will likely see it before me, so I’ll get his opinion (as long as he doesn’t spoil it).
I’m not even sure how many times I’ve watched the trailer and looked at all of the pictures. I love analyzing the trailers and playing Where Do I Know That Actor From.
I’m moving the Hunger Games discussion here from the Random Thread to avoid spoiling.
Overall, I’m very satisfied. The filmmakers did a great job of capturing the story, the actors did well, and I was fine with some of the changes (for example, how Katniss received from the mockingjay pin. Any criticisms I have are the difference between a good movie and a great movie.
That being said, I do have a lot of reservations, and because so far I’ve heard those discussed less than the virtues of the film, I’d like to talk about some of my concerns.
The number one biggest issue I have is humanization, or lack thereof. When the promotional materials for the movie came out, I liked seeing all of the photos of the individual tributes. Reading the book, I naturally glossed over most of the other kids. They weren’t described very much, and the focus was always on Katniss, Peeta, and a few others. Seeing their photos made it hit home anew that these are all kids. Kids like my brother or the younger kids at my soccer camp or that I see walking to school. Sure, some of them might be older teenagers, trained all their lives for combat to the death, but they’re kids too, basically child soldiers. It’s still wrong that society does this to them.
I was really hoping the movie would take advantage of its visual potential to emphasize the humanity, youth, and innocence of all of these kids who are killed for sport. I was disappointed that it didn’t. The constant motion and blurring that was used for the majority of action scenes didn’t leave any time for emotional pauses. Obviously, Katniss has a limited perspective, but we hardly saw faces, and the camera never lingered on them. Only three “minor” tributes stuck in my head at all: Clove, Foxface, and the little curly-haired boy from District 4. Where was the sympathy, no matter how fleeting, for the Careers? They’re victims in this too. I think Cato said at the very end that Glimmer was his sister? I practically missed the line, but it’s the only one that endows him with any kind of backstory besides “he’s richer and has been trained to kill; he’s evil”. Where’s Katniss’ agonizing when she realizes that, for the first time, she has killed a person with her own bow and arrow, not just with a tracker jackers’ nest? The film was headed in the right direction when Katniss and Gale discussed whether killing humans was different than killing animals, but that wasn’t followed up on. Furthermore, why didn’t the mutts look like the fallen tributes? The mutts aren’t disturbing because they’re big scary dog-things; they’re disturbing because they’re big scary dog-things that look like Glimmer, Foxface, and Rue.
There also wasn’t any humanization of people from the Capitol. In the books, Katniss’ stylists are silly beyond belief, which leads her to realize their fundamental ignorance about what goes on in the real lives of people in the Districts. Yet, they still have positive qualities that are endearing and valuable in their own way, and Katniss comes to appreciate them. The movie cuts the stylists and reduces Capitol denizens to one-dimensional portraits of the insensitive rich and privileged.
On the surface, the Hunger Games movie is a great adaptation. No movie can capture everything loved about a book, and its challenge was especially difficult because so much of the book takes place inside Katniss’ head. However, I feel like in its effort to get the entire plot in, the movie loses a lot of the disturbing and powerful messages about war that the series emphasizes throughout. Without those messages, what are we as a theater audience doing besides watching kids kill kids, with some human interest stories woven in? And, in that sense, how are we any different or better than the entranced Capitol audience we’re supposed to hate and pity?
Eh. I wasn’t a big fan of the dog-things in the book, or at least the idea that they were embodiments of the people Katniss let die, so I might not mind that discrepancy.
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER HUNGER GAMES SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER HUNGER GAMES SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER HUNGER GAMES SPOILER SPOILER.
I don’t care what various reviews say, I thought it was absolutely fantastic. Loyal to the book, mostly good casting choices, and not nearly as Twilighty as I feared. Random opinion list:
1. I love how closely they followed the book. Almost everything that happened in the book, happened in the movie. Yessss.
2. The Cornucopia looked weird, but I see how it was necessary for the fight at the end.
3. I thought it was awesome how Foxface wore her hair in two buns, since I had always drawn her that way.
4. Cato was an oddly sympathetic character at the end. I think I was closer to crying when the Complete Monster Career guy was talking about how killing is all he knows how to do and the Gamemakers always wanted him dead, than when the cute little Morality Pet girl got speared through the stomach.
5. Some of the casting choices I was worried about, like Peeta and Haymitch, actually fit their roles really well. Cinna, though … ehh. And I was disappointed they took out his “You’re not afraid of fire, are you, Katniss?” *psychotic grin* line.
6. The only other thing I didn’t like was the wolf mutts not looking like the dead tributes. Or like wolves, for that matter.
7. Seneca Crane’s beard. Your argument is invalid. Actually, movie!Crane was a lot more evilly awesome than in the book. Right down to the suicide by berries, which I think is better than offscreen hanging.
8. I’ve decided I’m Team book!Gale, Team movie!Peeta.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I’ve seen the cast. I pictured Cinna as being a sort of small slightly dorky guy with messy reddish-brown hair and freckles. I don’t even remember how he was described in the book, my brain just made a body to fit his personality.
I pictured Cinna with light brown hair and green eyes, wearing a white dress shirt and skinny jeans, and he sometimes wears glasses when he’s designing clothes.
MY FRIEND IS IN IT IN DISTRICT TWELVE THE GIRL WITH THE PRINCESS LEIA BRAIDS ON THE RIGHT CORNER
My friend is in it too – he’s the male tribute from District Three.
So is my friend! She’s in a lot of scenes with the reaping/district 12 and at least 3 shots in the capitol that we noticed.
So exciting!
You all have friends who were in the movie?!
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS HUNGER GAMES SPOILERS READ AT YOUR OWN PERIL ETC
I liked the movie. Still, something bothered me about it. I can’t completely put my finger up on, but somehow the movie failed to pull me in. Perhaps it was because I read the book, but that never stopped be before. Maybe it was the excessive shaky camera at the beginning that drove me crazy. But very minute of the movie, I was extremely conscious that I was sitting in a theatre watching the movie and felt a bit like I was ticking off a list of scenes. Don’t get me wrong, it was a great adaption, but somehow I didn’t much enjoy watching it as a movie per se. To be honest, I’d have preferred them leaving out a few book scenes in exchange for straightening out the arc and simplifying and clarifying the movie. They were trying to tell three different stories at once: we have the Captiol/dystopia, the Tributes’ stories/fates, Katniss and her family, Katniss/Peeta/Gale, the 74th Hunger Games themselves… you can’t really follow the movie as movie that easily. Also, somehow the whole Peeta/Katniss cave thing somehow felt extremely rushed. In the book, part of the tension is the way Katniss constantly needs to act and how it’s the Hunger Games– while in the movies, it’s Teenagers! Killing!! other teenagers!! And some of them are evil!!! This is meant to be a dystopia!!!. The whole Peeta/Katniss angle was bungled.
I understand that they felt the need to bring in the rebellion, but I think that they could’ve just axed most of the Snow/Seneca scenes and replaced them with one Snow/Seneca scene at the end- without the “Hope is a powerful force” drivel, just Snow telling Seneca that he holds him personally responsible for the uprising in 11 (where the Capitol’s censorship could be shown, as Seneca wouldn’t know about it), explaining to him that Katniss Everdeen is now a danger to the Captiol because she symbolises defiance. Then Seneca can freak out a little because he knows that Snow’s a sociopath and beg to be able to make it up. Snow can do some ominous foreshadowing, have Seneca tossed in the room with the berries and walk away smiling. The end. Snow keeps reminding me of Santa Claus, for some reason: I imagined him much more threatening.
It was excellent for a book adaption anyhow. I loved the chariot costume and the Seneca/Berries moment. But the end and the beginning were felt somewhat raw, like it was the first draft of the movie and they weren’t sure how to arrange the scenes yet. Santa Claus walking up some stairs- sure, that’s a great ending to keep me in suspense for the next year. He could’ve said something.
Eh, this came out a lot more critical than I intended. Sorry ’bout that. Also, why are most of the Capitol’s citizens white? I realize that purple people are hard to find, but if they have pink dogs, I figured they’d have some ethnic diversity.
That’s really similar to how I felt about it. It was fun to watch, especially since I went with a bunch of friends, but I was very conscious of how I was in a movie theater watching a movie. I feel like it was a well-made movie in many aspects. The casting was done well for the most part, and I liked the filming (mostly because I’m not bothered by shaky-camera), but there was something missing, and I think it was that human element. I really wanted the movie to make people think about how each of the tributes, even the evil ones, have families and friends.
The Hunger Games. Ahh, I have so much emotion. I was expecting it to be good, not better than the book, but good. It wasn’t. It was amazing.
It was a good movie in that it was a good movie in its own right and a good version of the book. Characters were well represented, plotlines were held up, and the changes that the movie producers made fit in well.
It was a good movie in that the camera work was beautiful. In the beginning, the photo quality was soft and muted, sort of faded in a way that I can’t exactly describe. It reminded me of old photographs–sort of grainy, wonderful. It made me sort of nostalgic. The quality of the film also underlined the poverty of District 12 in a way that was a bit unexpected. It was lovely. Later, too, the film changed to show Katniss’s emotions. Things became blurry and shaken up when she was nervous, blurry and muted when she was in shock, and how she was feeling was so raw and powerful that it made a huge impression. ‘Twas exceptionally well done.
It was a good movie in that the characters all looked similar to how I had imagined them. I know that that’s something that only really matters to me personally. Still, it significantly increased my enjoyment of the movie. Katniss could have been a bit less pretty–seriously, Jennifer Lawrence is beautiful–but she was portrayed well as tough, so it didn’t really matter.
It was a good movie in that Katniss Everdeen was not a Mary Sue. In the book, she was too perfect. She was tough. She was pretty. She had little internal conflict. She wasn’t great at talking, but I would describe her more as blunt and direct than awkward. In the movie, she was definitely awkward. This…awkwardness…added a weaker element to her character than made her far more human. She was still pretty and tough, but she wasn’t perfect, either.
It was a good movie in that the music was gorgeous. I literally got chills down my back at several points during it. The music was always appropriate, as well, melding into each scene flawlessly. I can find no other word to accurately summarize the music: beautiful.
Just…I loved it.
Apparently one of the actors revealed that he had signed on for four movies. So … they’re going to split one of the books (likely Mockingjay) in half? That could actually be a good thing, since so much happens near the end. Honestly, making Mockingjay less rushed would be an improvement.
And Catching Fire is scheduled for release in November 2013. They have the same director, but a writer who is Not Suzanne Collins. *twitches* I really want to see what the arena looks like, and who they cast as Finnick, Johanna, etc.
… I’m sorry, I’m just excited to have a new book-to-movie franchise to worry about for the next few years. *squee*
It’s really becoming popular to split a book into two parts isn’t it?
I don’t really mind as long as they do really well in both parts. Otherwise it makes me think they’re just doing it for the money, which they probably partially are.
Once more, Harry Potter is a trendsetter.
Well, I saw it, and… wow. The Hunger Games is probably the best thing I’ve seen since Lord of the Rings.
Well, considering that I’ve seen the Batman movies, Up, and Princess Mononoke since then, I wouldn’t quite use such hyperbole, but I agree, it was great.
I have seen The Hobbit! I need to talk about it at length!
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS HOBBIT SPOILERS BEWARE ALL YE WHO READ BELOW SPOILERS. HOBBIT SPOILERS HOBBIT SPOILERS HOBBIT SPOILERS. MANY SPOILERS. PROBABLY NOT OF THE EARTHSHAKING VARIETY SINCE I DON’T THINK I’M GOING TO SPOIL THE ENDING BUT STILL SPOILERS SPOILERS HOBBIT SPOILERS PROCEED WITH EXTREME CAUTION
Soooo. First, I must say that I fangirl-twirled out of the theater, through the mall, and much of the way home.
I thought they did a really good job tying the whole thing in with the Lord of the Rings movies; the only inconsistency I spotted was the way in which Bilbo finds the ring, but I liked the new one better.
And Martin Freeman is a yes. So much yes.
I am wondering if anyone else thought this? I found the CGI a lot less convincing than it was in LotR- especially for the Kingdom Under the Mountain shots, with those vast halls. I mean, Moria looks pretty real in Fellowship; they got the shadows on all the stone right, and, I don’t know, it was just convincing for me. I found the CGI in this one less realistic.
That said. Gollum. Completely perfect. In every way. I loved the way they made the separation of his Ring-personality and his Smeagol-personality so apparent, because you can really see his descent into the Gollum in Return of the King, when the two personalities are nearly melded. And, of course, Andy Serkis is an utter genius.
I didn’t like the Radagast scene much- although the entire theater applauded when he resuscitated the hedgehog. He seemed far too much like Tom Bombadil for my liking, and I don’t really think the dashing-around-the-forest-on-a-rabbit-sleigh added much to the plot.
Anyway, in all, I really liked it. I thought the theme music was excellent, and the scenery was, of course, amazing… I’d kind of forgotten how beautiful New Zealand is.
HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS
The CGI was definitely much poorer and much more obvious than it was in the LOTR trilogy. It was clear to me that they didn’t spend as much time or money on it, which is rather disappointing. It actually reminded me of the most recent Indiana Jones movie, which I thought had similarly cringeworthy CGI. In my opinion they should’ve spent the extra money and relied more on set-building, or at least using actual actors for every scene; one shot towards the end of the movie, a wide of Thorin’s company standing in the dramatic scenery of the eyrie, looked horribly fake. There were better graphics in the “turn off your cell phone” notices beforehand.
Now, into my own reaction to the film.
Overall, I admit I was disappointed with the movie, and it’s for a reason that could’ve so easily been avoided. Simply put, this movie was cheesy. Now, I know The Hobbit was a children’s book and much simpler and more lighthearted than Tolkien’s other works, but the extent to which they took their humor was simply bad. The number of one-liners astounded me, and each time one of them contrived itself into the dialogue I was immediately reminded, “Hey, you’re in a theater, you’re watching a movie.” In the LOTR movies, the atmosphere and the writing drew you into the universe, and you forgot that you were watching a piece of fiction. This movie took that gravitas, that sincerity that enveloped you, and threw it down the toilet. Radagast and his rabbits. The goblin king’s witty retort upon being mortally wounded. Gollum’s silly facial expressions and blowing raspberries. All of that was just in horrible taste. Tolkien’s humor is so much more subtle and so much deeper than that–using lines that would fit better in a Disney Channel show does not reflect the dignity of the original work.
Several of the specific changes they made also ticked me off. Right from the beginning, when Bilbo is wishing Gandalf a good morning, they got rid of the honest cheerfulness with which the Bilbo of the book greeted the wizard and replaced it with–well, with an Arthur Dent sort of character. In my eyes, that takes away an entire dimension of Bilbo’s personality. I was also quite annoyed that they removed Gandalf’s imitation of the trolls’ voices and used just a dull, uninspired stalling-for-time gambit in its place. The virtual invention of Azog the Defiler as the major antagonist of the movie was clearly just a way to dumb down and mainstream the movie and make it fit the tired mold of Hollywood action movies. Now, some of the other liberties they took I understand and appreciate. The whole Thorin-not-trusting-Bilbo thing tied the first movie together pretty well. Playing up Thorin’s backstory lends the movie a bit of depth. Focusing a bit on the historical dwarf/elf tension fits nicely with the LOTR movies. But I thought most of the differences from the book were A, insipid, and B, a bit insulting to my intelligence.
Of course, the movie had good qualities as well. First and foremost, I think Howard Shore somehow managed to outdo himself in the soundtrack department. The new themes, the use of the LOTR motifs, everything about it worked perfectly and overall it was a masterful, timeless creation. I thought everything that took place in Bilbo’s home was also superb, and I enjoyed that part of the movie immensely. All of the casting and the acting was excellent as well, better than I had hoped.
Anyway, those are the basic themes of what I thought about the movie. I’ll have to revisit these judgments once the other two movies have been released as well, as my thoughts now may change with a wider context.
HOBBIT SPOILERS HOBBIT SPOILERS HOBBIT SPOILERS HOBBIT SPOILERS HOBBIT SPOILERS HOBBIT SPOILERS HOBBIT SPOILERS HOBBIT SPOILERS HOBBIT SPOILERS HOBBIT SPOILERS HOBBIT SPOILERS HOBBIT SPOILERS HOBBIT SPOILERS
THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED SPOILER
THE HOBBIT:SPOILED AND BACK AGAIN
THE HOBBIT: THE DESOLATION OF SPOILERS
Right, I completely forgot to mention Azog- he doesn’t need to be there. Thorin’s motivation is, or at least, always seemed to me, some kind of heroic, tragic longing for his kingdom to be restored, not a mad march for vengeance.
Also, Azog is definitely supposed to be dead. Definitely. He was beheaded.
And, again, I just think that the whole Azog thing changed the spirit of the dwarves’ mission in some way (spellcheck wants to change “dwarves” to “wharves,” and I am not having it). (I should note that this is really based on my perception of the book around age six, the first time I read it, and while I loved it, my literary analysis skills were not strong. But that perception has stuck with me since.)
I didn’t mind Gollum’s raspberries- he does that in LotR, too, so at least it connects- but yeah, I did mind the completely out-of-place one-liners. And what was even with the Goblins and their king? They looked a lot different, and a lot more like I imagined them, in LotR- like miniature, pointy orcs, sort of sharply, mischievously evil.
But really, I’m still just very, very confused about the CGI. They did such an amazingly good job with it in Lord of the Rings, such an indescribably good job. I mean, Moria and those fantastic battle scenes and the Ride of the Rohirrim and the huge towers could have fooled me- maybe because, aside from the more realistic graphics, they didn’t feel the need to computer-enhance everything. Radagast’s forest scene looked kind of larger-than-life and fake; the hedgehog looked like a Pixar character.
I mean, I still loved it. But they could have done better.
Did you by any chance watch it in 48fps? A friend was saying that that can make CGI more noticeable because the 48 looks really realistic.
I saw it today, and the CGI looked super realistic… Maybe it is something to do with the frame rate?
I think I actually watched it in 24fps, if that’s possible- I know that they were advertising a different “HD” showing that we didn’t go to. And it wasn’t in 3D, either; I wonder if it looks more realistic that way? Normally I don’t like watching movies in 3D, but perhaps they formatted the CGI to work particularly well with it.
I watched it in 2D at 24fps as well. Looks like I’ll have to watch it again in super-mega-fancy quality. Y’know, for science.
Sometimes science does require sacrifice.
Okay, poll time!
Did those of you who have seen it watch it:
3D or non-3D?
48fps or not?
How did it look?
And, if Cerulean has options available to her, which combination should she tell her film-going companion that they should choose?
I watched in in 2D, 24fps. I thought it was just fine that way, no fancy dimensions or framerates necessary.
However, I have heard very good things about the 3D and 48fps versions, so as long as 3D doesn’t make your film-going companion nauseous, try it!
I’ve read that the 48fps version shows so much detail that it makes the sets look less convincing (i.e., more like movie sets). Unfortunately, an end-of-the-year work crunch has kept me too busy to see the movie until next week at earliest.
HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS.
I actually liked the light-hearted goofiness of this movie — maybe because I associate the book very strongly with my own childhood. The Azog subplot was weak, not just because it messed with Thorin’s motivation but because it seemed like an unnecessary and clumsy attempt to recapture the tone and themes of LOTR. (The battle montage with Thorin/Thrain/Azog seemed almost like a play-by-play re-enactment of Isildur/Elendil/Sauron… anyone else notice that?) But on the whole, I went in with low expectations and enjoyed the whole thing immensely. (As other people have mentioned, the music was amazing, and the casting and acting were very good too.)
I really have no judgment to make on the CGI, though.
GAPA confession time: I don’t care about CGI. I love live theater, even though the people are tiny, the action restricted, and the special effects extremely limited. In movies, as long as the story and the characters are compelling, the monsters can be actors wearing rubber suits with the zippers showing as far as I’m concerned.
HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS HOBBIT PART 1 SPOILERS.
For the most part, I agree. But in this particular instance, I felt like it worked with the cheesy one-liners to destroy the possibility of becoming absorbed in the movie. It wasn’t every piece of graphics that was bad, either–maybe that’s part of it. Most of it didn’t even register in my mind as “fake”. But the parts that did, the parts that looked like Wolfenstein 3D, were like a slap in the face, at least when compared to how thoroughly immersive the LOTR movies were. If nothing else, it was inconsistent. I guess it just wasn’t what I was hoping for.
Time for a long post, for I and two companions saw An Unexpected Journey yesterday afternoon! Thanks for advice about tech options–one companion was up for anything, but the other was firmly in favor of 2D, which we ended up choosing. I think the frame-rate was normal. It…looked quite good, and sometimes merely fine. I don’t know whether it looked inferior to LotR or not. My brain absorbs aesthetics more than rendering. (Did that sentence make sense? Eh, it’s what I mean to say.) What rendering I did absorb looked very nice! There were some times when a shot looked like it had been designed for 3D–lingering on a moth flying toward the viewer; a slightly over-dramatic swing of the goblin king’s club/scepter–but I didn’t feel deprived.
I found the movie mostly satisfying. More satisfying than I expected, though that is probably because I kept hearing “Well, it was fine, but so inferior to The Lord of the Rings films…”
SPOILERS WILL NOW BE WRIT! SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS PROCEED CAUTIOUSLY, AND HEED MY WARNING, FOR I SHALL SPOIL WITH ABANDON SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
Still here? Okay!
I had some issues with pacing. If the movie had been mine to do what I liked with, I would have re-allotted some of the fight-sequence time for breathing time–some light we-don’t-nearly-die-every-day-you-know chatting, and such. I did really like it that the length allowed them to keep some things, and do some things, that would have otherwise been marked ephemera. I was not remotely expecting them to use the “That’s what Bilbo Baggins hates!” song, for example. I almost began to expect “Tra-la-la-lally, down in the valley!” to pop up, but alas not.
List time, because I want to!
Things I liked:
-Frodo and Bilbo interaction.
-I saw Sam’s old gaffer as Bilbo left!
-Lee Pace–er, he plays Thranduil–was riding an elk! Elf! On an elk! I AM VERY COHERENT
-Fili, Kili, Bilbo: Approaching the trolls. MUST NOT LOSE THE SOUP BOWLS!
-Radagast. I did. I like him precisely because, in contrast to Gandalf and Saruman, he has neither dignity nor gravitas! Also, bunny sled. Plot? Nah. Theme-bolstering? Yes. I mean it! All that about small things defeating evil? Well, the bunnies pwned the Orcs. I like that.
-Gandalf was passing notes with his BFF Galadriel while Mr. Saruman was talking.
-Oh, hi, Figwit.
-Weaving’s Elrond had an irritating (to me) sinister undercurrent in LotR, which was almost entirely absent this time.
-The riddle game! ‘Kay, we all agree Andy Serkis does a brill Gollum, yes? Yes.
-When the eagles were carrying the company to the aerie, the one clutching Thorin carefully shifted him in its grasp. It just looked so natural and smooth; I loved it.
Things I didn’t like:
-Azog the Marshmallow Defiler subplot. You surely know why. Do I understand them wanting a present Big Bad in this film, since the Necromancer is still rising, and they haven’t reached Smaug yet? Sure, I get it. But I didn’t enjoy it. I kept wanting him to die! Die, Azog, you were dead in the book! Oh, well. (Oh, were we meant to gather that the Necromancer had, er, necromanced, Azog back, or did I make that up?)
-There was something else I especially wanted to say, but WHAT?
-Oh! I did not like the giant dwarf (heh) statues at Erebor. They were kind of shouting “This is a dwarf homeland! Of dwarves!” Which was silly, since everyone who knew what Erebor was would know who lived there. Wouldn’t they have wanted statues that made a point–about wealth, or might, or just ruling?
-No li’l Aragorn at Rivendell?
Neutral remarks:
-They pronounce Smaug “SmOWg”. I pronounce it “Smog”. Anyone else?
-Smaug’s tail was red-orange, but his eye area was blue. IS HE A RAINBOW DRAGON?
-When Gandalf was talking about the Witch-king of Angmar, I valiantly suppressed my urge to shout: “I am no man!” Because that would have annoyed the other people in the room.
“Smowg” matches Tolkien’s instructions for pronouncing names in his books. In general, the movies follow his phonetic system closely, with a few glaring exceptions (e.g., Isengard).
I have always pronounced the 12 dwarves’ names differently due to an audiobook of The Hobbit I listened to as a child D: I don’t think I’ll ever train myself to say them the movie way if that’s the correct way.
(well not all of them, but I pronounce Dwalin, Balin, and Bifur most differently)
So who else is excited for Les Mis? I can’t possibly be the only one here. I’m going to see it tomorrow; I can’t wait! The clip of Anne Hathaway singing “I Dreamed a Dream” is really, really awesome, so that’s a good sign. What’s annoying is that Colm Wilkinson is in it, but he isn’t Valjean. Ah, well. At the very least, that means the bishop is probably going to be very well-done, Except I’m told Hugh Jackman doesn’t sing his parts very well? I’ve heard him sing before, but I don’t remember it at all. I’ll have to look one of those songs up again. *does so* Well, he sings “Me” pretty well, but Burke Moses is better. But that hardly matters, because Valjean is a very, very different kind of character from Gaston, and I don’t think I should make assumptions based on something like this. But also, Helena Bonham Carter’s in it! So that’s good, too… Well, I’ll see. I’m definitely going to tell you all about it tomorrow. And I suppose I still need to make my Hobbit post… Anyway, off to listen to different versions of Les Mis songs.
MEEEP, I am going to see it tomorrow as well! (I was campaigning for the midnight showing, but my parents declined on the grounds of sanity.) Anyway, I am absolutely excited, and possibly going to dress as either Eponine or one of the prostitutes from Lovely Ladies (but, I mean, it’s cold, and also my parents might object to being seen in public with their daughter dressed as a prostitute).
I am so ridiculously thrilled about this movie. I think booking our tickets was the best present my parents could’ve gotten me.
Also, if you’re listening to different versions of Les Mis, might I recommend the Polish, Hebrew, and French casts’ respective versions? They’re all on YouTube. I mean, I find pretty much any recording of the musical impressive, but the songs are really cool-sounding in other languages. Also, the Polish cast did a wonderful flash-mob version of One Day More in a mall.
I want to dress as Javert. Not really sure how, though. Oh man Les Mis!! I should go to bed.
The thing is, though, I don’t speak Polish or Hebrew or French. Or do they have versions with English subtitles? I was watching the subtitled 1939 French movie based on the book today; it was lovely.
Personally, I like the 25th-Anniversary concert. Lea Salonga is awesome (as I’m sure you’d agree, being a Mulan fan yourself). I haven’t seen her as Eponine yet because I haven’t gotten that far in the version where she’s Eponine, but she does Fantine amazingly. And I love the London recording. And I’m watching a performance on Broadway from 2003 that’s great. I don’t like the 10th-anniversary concert or the complete symphonic recording as much, though–I mean, they’re good, but I like the aforesaid versions better.
Oh, I don’t speak those either! It’s just the recordings; I think they sound nice in other languages, although I don’t understand the lyrics.
Oh, I see. Maybe I’ll check them out sometime. Anyway, I just got back.
It was amazing.
Like, really amazing.
So much so that I’m completely inarticulate. I’m just going to vanish in a puff of admiration for now.
Does anyone want to talk about Les Mis with me? (Has anyone wiped away enough tears to see their computer screen?)
It was so perfect. I don’t think my heart will ever recover from the last couple scenes.
I’m just going to hang out here trying to stop crying long enough to submit my college application. (Fantine. Fantine. If Hathaway doesn’t get the Supporting Actress award I’m going to be stunned. Jesus, that scene with the sailor inside the ship– I thought my heart stopped.)
LES MIS SPOILER ALERT. I DON’T ACTUALLY KNOW IF THIS COUNTS AS A SPOILER BUT BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT LES MIS SPOILER ALERT LES MIS SPOILERS AHEAD LES MIS SPOILERS MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR
Koppar- The reprise of Do You Hear the People Sing got a standing ovation in our theater.
Cat- Oh god, yes, she was incredible. I just, there aren’t words really, the entire thing was amazing amazing amazing and may have left wounds on my heart. I actually managed to keep it together fairly well (as in, only a few tears), but I really broke down when Javert pinned his badge on Gavroche’s shirt… by the end I was just trying not to sob too disruptively. Everyone in our theater was in tears; in the quiet spaces between songs, you could hear muffled sobs and sniffles.
I just, I just, oh, my god. I don’t know if I will ever be able to seriously analyze this movie. It was that good.
I absolutely loved it. Russel Crow pulled off Javert perfectly, in my opinion, and I really enjoyed how “Castle on a Cloud” was sung, especially when Cosette is humming it in the forest to try and calm herself down.
I may be the only person on the blog who saw it and didn’t cry, though I did come close when Gavroche was killed.
YES. A lot of people don’t like Russel Crow for some reason, but I thought he was perfect.
Also, Isabelle Allen was adorable and perfect.
I didn’t like Russel Crow at all. Here’s why: He expresses no emotion, even when he’s about to SPOILERS kill himself. It was so weird.
Plus his singing sounds like he’s swallowing all the time. That’s weird, too. I was more focused on how weird he sounded than what he was singing about.
Late to the party, but I only saw it two weeks ago and I’ve only just calmed down enough to be anything even resembling concise.
I adored Russel Crowe, except for his singing voice (or lack thereof, really). But that was okay, because he sang softly enough that I could just mentally replace his singing with Andrew Valera’s vocals and enjoy his acting in piece.
Samantha Barks was also good. Her 25th Concert performance was leagues better than her movie performance, but whatever. At least she sang.
And I would have liked Eddie Redmayne if he hadn’t done that… vibrating… thing whenever he sang. But as it was he looked like a bobblehead on speed. Seriously.
Everything else… I spent the entire movie alternately face-palming and giggling and generally just going “what? what? …what?!” at all the random unnecessary changes/additions/rearrangements/slowing-downs/cuts and what-have-you. And the ham-handed Symbolismâ„¢ and the fact that Tom Hooper basically shoved a camera down the actors’ throats whenever they started singing.
In general I enjoyed it in a so-bad-it’s-hilarious sort of way, but I really loathed Anne Hathaway’s demonstrative “HI I’M ACTING IN CASE YOU DIDN’T NOTICE!!” schtick and the awkward things she was doing with her face to force out her tears. And when she tried to belt at the end of “I Dreamed a Dream” it was physically painful to listen to (ditto Hugh Jackman reaching for those super high notes. Ow).
Also, the way they tried to make their Thenardiers funnier than the musical!Thenardiers and ended up just breaking my suspension of disbelief by just going over-the-top and doing things that would work in a silly cartoon but did not fit well with the serious and as-realistic-as-a-musical-can-be tone Hooper was going for with the rest of the movie.
I just… it wasn’t good.
The Hobbit.
I saw it.
I squeed so much. It was beautiful.
Kid’s movies. I want to talk about kid’s movies, or at least movies that are aimed at a younger audience, because I firmly believe that many of these films are enjoyable by older audiences as well. As a matter of fact I almost prefer them more, although that could be do to lack of exposure towards more, I dunno, “grown-up” movies.
I saw Rise of the Guardians and Wreck-it Ralph over winter break. On the same day, actually, right after one another. Of the two, I immediately liked Rise of Guardians more. But it’s been Wreck-it Ralph that I’ve been thinking about over the past weeks, analyzing. And I think the reason I’m doing that is because of what it represents.
Wreck-it Ralph is a story about video game characters coming to life when we’re not looking. There’s nothing unusual about that. We’ve been imagining stories where our toys come to life for ages. Toy Story is the most famous of these, but I’ve read this book called The Doll People that had a similar premise, and even things like that depressing Hans Christian Anderson story about the tin soldier and the ballerina could probably count. The point is, in Wreck it Ralph, it’s video games or at least arcade games, doing this. It’s accepting the fact that all the love and care and time we put into playing these games and imagining the characters is not wasted. It is, in fact, just as valuable as the toys we physically play with. And historically, the way people treat video games shows that they weren’t considered as valuable. So the fact that people are making a movie about video game characters’ secret lives shows that it’s undergone some kind of sea change in recent years. Video games have been accepted into the mainstream, no longer the province of painfully stereotypical nerds. And despite not being a big gamer myself, I like that.*
*You could probably make some argument about this all referring to arcade games and not video games, but I think the general principle here is sound.
(Oh, and I also saw the Hobbit, and will add my voice to the list of people who enjoyed and didn’t care about CGI)
I still haven’t seen Wreck-it Ralph but man, I need to. And I know enough about the movie to find your point really, really cool.
Has anyone else been incredibly impressed by the quality of a lot of “kids’ movies” that have come out in the past couple of years? I’m thinking back on the movies I saw last year that I really loved and at least half were animated and supposedly aimed at children.
Yes. Well, actually, I have seen exactly one “kids’ movie” from the past few years, so I shouldn’t speak. But, um, it was good. It was Tangled, by the way; I saw it because I’m a huge Alan Menken fan, and I certainly enjoyed it. I haven’t yet seen Enchanted, though; I know I need to. And as for non-Alan Menken kids’ movies, I’ve heard amazing things about Brave, so I plan to see that sometime, too. What, specifically, are you referring to? I don’t keep up with movies much, so those are actually almost the only “kids’ movies” I can think of from the past 2 years that haven’t been mentioned–oh, the Arietty one! Was that any good? I love the books; they were some of my favorites in third grade. I haven’t heard what the movie is like; if those of you who’ve seen it want to talk about it, that would be fine.
Anyway, “kids’ movies” in general. Those I can talk a lot about. I love everything from the Disney Renaissance that’s in the Animated Canon that I’ve seen (and the only one I haven’t seen is Rescuers Down Under). Well, I’m not a huge fan a The Little Mermaid, but was okay. The stage musical was amazing, of course.
The funny thing, though, is that “kids’ movies”… sometimes aren’t. I don’t just mean in the sense of older people liking them; I love The Hunchback of Notre Dame (I’m talking about the Disney version here), for instance, but how it ended up with a G rating… I mean, just listen to Hellfire. Listen to it. Not to mention “Join the bums and thieves and strumpets!” in “Topsy Turvy.” I realize that Clopin is morally ambiguous and Frollo is absolutely evil, but it makes no sense that Tangled is rated PG, and this isn’t.
Also, the animated movie version of Pippi Longstocking. The books were my favorites in kindergarten, and so I watched various movie adaptations. I had fond memories, but I didn’t trust my former self’s judgment. Then I found out that the music to this one was done by Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz, so I had to see it, and although it’s certainly not their best, I really enjoyed it overall.
Also, Up. That was good.
SOMEONE NEEDS TO DISCUSS THE NEW STAR TREK WITH ME BEFORE I IMPLODE PLEASE AND THANK YOU.
Lol fanservice.
Okay, someone needs to discuss the plot and acting with me before I implode.
STAR TREk SPOILERS STAR TREK SPOILERS STAR TREK SPOILERS STAR TREK SPOILERS STAR TREK SPOILERS.
Plot: zomg fanservice. Especially the last half hour where they were trying to mirror Wrath of Khan. I just couldn’t take it seriously basically after the tribble appeared onscreen. Also Khan’s blood brings Kirk back? What? There goes search for spock…. Also all of the references to redshirts. But seriously, is wrath of khan the only star trek movie jj abrams has seen? It was just so ridiculously masturbatory, and works much less well as a stand-alone film than the first one. Plus while we were having all this fanservice they couldn’t work in a George Takai cameo?
Acting: It was good. I’d like to see Benedict Cumberbatch playing a character with emotions one of these days.
STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS STAR TREK SPOILERS STAR TREK SPOILERS STAR TREK SPOILERS
I loved that they mirrored The Wrath of Khan. It seems like they’re showing that in the alternate timeline, the same sorts of things would form Kirk and Spock’s relationship, which is what these movies seem to be centered on, and I like it.
They put in a lot of TOS callbacks, yeah- but I don’t see anything wrong with that. I went with my cousin, who hadn’t seen any of the old movies, and he still thought Into Darkness was a really good story.
Acting- god, yes. Khan did have emotions; he killed all those people because he thought the Federation had killed his crew members. I mean, misguided emotions, but definitely emotions.
I also really loved that Uhura got to save the day more, which she generally didn’t in TOS. Also, when the music started building up after Kirk’s death and the camera zoomed in on Spock, everyone in our theater kind of leaned forward because they could feel the “KHAAAAAAAAAN” coming.
STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS STAR TREK SPOILERS STAR TREK SPOILERS STAR TREK SPOILERSSTAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS STAR TREK SPOILERS STAR TREK SPOILERS STAR TREK SPOILERS
I really really really really liked it. And not just because Cumberbatch was in it (although that’s the reason I went). I haven’t seen any of the other STar Trek movies, so I can’t really comment as far as Lizzie’s take on it in comparison, but as someone who only has passing knowledge of Star Trek (as in, I’ve seen a few episodes of one of the series, the one with the Reading Rainbow dude, and I’ve seen the first episode of the first series, and I know many of the internet memes related to it–red shirts always die, “dammit, Jim, I’m a doctor not a [insert job here]”, Captain Kirk being the Star Trek equivalent of Captain Jack, except that he only has an eye for the ladies, etc)
But yeah. I really liked it. Didn’t know Kahn was a recurring baddy, until my Trekkie friend (who loved the movie) mentioned that he was when I was commenting how glad I was they didn’t kill him off.
Just saw The Great Gatsby, and I am absolutely floored by how brilliant it was. I was concerned about some aspects of it going in (namely the disinterest in period accuracy with the music and some of the costuming) but it all worked beautifully and the end result is an amazing movie. Watch it. If heights don’t put you off, watch it in 3D.