[polishgenius]

Abyss, on 09 November 2011 - 04:19 PM, said:

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART I - Not only was a lot of that not in the book, but there was a good reason why it wasn't. A few good action fx scenes, otherwise yawn.

While I did think that film was okay

Spoiler

apart from the dancing scene and the utterly ridiculous Horcrux-tormenting-Ron scene, I did find it hilarious how they thought the best way to hide was to light a fire on top of a mountain.

[Tattersail_]

polishgenius, on 09 November 2011 - 09:39 PM, said:

Abyss, on 09 November 2011 - 04:19 PM, said:

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART I - Not only was a lot of that not in the book, but there was a good reason why it wasn't. A few good action fx scenes, otherwise yawn.

While I did think that film was okay

Spoiler

apart from the dancing scene and the utterly ridiculous Horcrux-tormenting-Ron scene, I did find it hilarious how they thought the best way to hide was to light a fire on top of a mountain.

Okay i'll bite just this once. They set words so no one could see them, they were surrounded by an invisible wall that let them see out but no one could see in. The books are always better than the film but you got to look at them as different entities altogether. If you do, like I have, you'll find that they are enjoyable, and if you don't then thats okay.

[QuickTidal]

Tattersail, on 10 November 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 09 November 2011 - 09:39 PM, said:

Abyss, on 09 November 2011 - 04:19 PM, said:

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART I - Not only was a lot of that not in the book, but there was a good reason why it wasn't. A few good action fx scenes, otherwise yawn.

While I did think that film was okay

Spoiler

apart from the dancing scene and the utterly ridiculous Horcrux-tormenting-Ron scene, I did find it hilarious how they thought the best way to hide was to light a fire on top of a mountain.

Okay i'll bite just this once. They set wards so no one could see them, they were surrounded by an invisible wall that let them see out but no one could see in.

^^This polishgenius. Dunno how you missed that, it was pretty clear.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 10 November 2011 - 03:42 PM

[Tattersail_]

QuickTidal, on 10 November 2011 - 03:42 PM, said:

Tattersail, on 10 November 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 09 November 2011 - 09:39 PM, said:

Abyss, on 09 November 2011 - 04:19 PM, said:

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART I - Not only was a lot of that not in the book, but there was a good reason why it wasn't. A few good action fx scenes, otherwise yawn.

While I did think that film was okay

Spoiler

apart from the dancing scene and the utterly ridiculous Horcrux-tormenting-Ron scene, I did find it hilarious how they thought the best way to hide was to light a fire on top of a mountain.

Okay i'll bite just this once. They set wards so no one could see them, they were surrounded by an invisible wall that let them see out but no one could see in.

^^This polishgenius. Dunno how you missed that, it was pretty clear.

ha ha ha, that was quick and if sarcastic it made me laugh anyway. You do see here twiddling her wand around the fire though, but yeah it sounds very nerdy!

[Abyss]

Tattersail, on 10 November 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

...The books are always better than the film but you got to look at them as different entities altogether. If you do, like I have, you'll find that they are enjoyable, and if you don't then thats okay.

I'm a firm believer in not judging an adaptation strictly by the source material.
In Hallows 1, they took some of the slower parts of the book, and added parts that did little or nothing for the story. I don't begrudge Hollywood turning one monster book into two flic, but it seems as tho they didn't do anything worthwhile with the opportunity.

Also, there was some oddity with things happening off screen like Ron being wounded and Hermione breaking Harry's wand...

It wasn't terrible by any means. Just had flaws.


in other news...

BATTLE LOS ANGELES - awesome shoot-em-up fun.

[polishgenius]

Tattersail, on 10 November 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

If you do, like I have, you'll find that they are enjoyable, and if you don't then thats okay.

Sure, they may have explained it logically but the image still cracked me up and dragged me out of the film for a second, especially since iirc they specifically showed said clifftop with fire flaring from miles away.

Where did you get the impression that I was judging the films by the books? I like the post-Columbus films, and regard five in particular as being better than the book it was based on (Prisoner is my favourite film, but also my favourite book). In fact, although the real killer was a complete lack of any directorial flair (sorry, Mr Columbus), one of my major problems with the first two films was that they tried to include everything in the books without accounting for differences in the medium.

[HoosierDaddy]

Deathly Hallows Part 1 + Part 2 is one hell of a cinematic experience.

Beautifully done.

[McLovin]

Saw J EDGAR. Eastwood back in fine form directing. Leonardo DiCaprio brings one of the most complex and deeply weird characters in American politics to life. All the supporting cast was great. It isn't completely satisfying as a movie - it seems to focus too much on the Lindbergh case, and not enough on other stuff. Plus Armie Hammer's epic repressed-queer tantrum scene is undercut somewhat by the fact that it likely (I assume) never happened. Still, I give it 8 daffodils out of 10.

[HoosierDaddy]

McLovin, on 16 November 2011 - 05:08 PM, said:

Saw J EDGAR. Eastwood back in fine form directing. Leonardo DiCaprio brings one of the most complex and deeply weird characters in American politics to life. All the supporting cast was great. It isn't completely satisfying as a movie - it seems to focus too much on the Lindbergh case, and not enough on other stuff. Plus Armie Hammer's epic repressed-queer tantrum scene is undercut somewhat by the fact that it likely (I assume) never happened. Still, I give it 8 daffodils out of 10.

I thought it was okay. Frankly, it painted a very rosy picture of Hoover while only slightly delving into just how power-hungry and corrupt he was. As a movie it is ok, entertaining and fairly well acted. But, I couldn't help wish it would have actually done something controversial.

5 out 10.

[worry]

I watched Pitch Black, which wasn't very good. I can only assume its reputation has grown in contrast to Chronicles of Riddick and not really on its own terms. It was a by the numbers attrition movie with only a couple noteworthy kills, and I'd give it like 4 out of 10 Predators. The premise and the actual alien creatures were cool though, as was Keith David.

Then I watched Valhalla Rising, which was pretty pleasant throughout. I had no problems with its pace or content, and it had some amazing landscapes. That's all positive, but that's not to say I loved it. As far as unsettling mind-trips go it wasn't exactly Blue Velvet or Mulholland Drive. Just like a well made, well performed but only somewhat compelling story. About 6 out 10 symbolic Viking warriors.

And then I watched Conan O'Brien Can't Stop. It was good, exactly what I expected, fairly amusing, nothing deep beyond a fan's affection for Conan and some sympathy for his (fairly legitimate) first world problem. I'd give it a 7.0 on the Andy Richter scale.

[QuickTidal]

worrywort, on 17 November 2011 - 12:54 AM, said:

I watched Pitch Black, which wasn't very good. I can only assume its reputation has grown in contrast to Chronicles of Riddick and not really on its own terms. It was a by the numbers attrition movie with only a couple noteworthy kills, and I'd give it like 4 out of 10 Predators. The premise and the actual alien creatures were cool though, as was Keith David.

Then I watched Valhalla Rising, which was pretty pleasant throughout. I had no problems with its pace or content, and it had some amazing landscapes. That's all positive, but that's not to say I loved it. As far as unsettling mind-trips go it wasn't exactly Blue Velvet or Mulholland Drive. Just like a well made, well performed but only somewhat compelling story. About 6 out 10 symbolic Viking warriors.

And then I watched Conan O'Brien Can't Stop. It was good, exactly what I expected, fairly amusing, nothing deep beyond a fan's affection for Conan and some sympathy for his (fairly legitimate) first world problem. I'd give it a 7.0 on the Andy Richter scale.

PITCH BLACK and RIDDICK are a couple of my faves. PITCH BLACK is cheesy genre-movie, sci-fi awesomeness and kind of has to be appreciated on that level. If you went in expecting it to be anything other than that type of movie that would have been a good Grindhouse flick from the 70's then I am afraid you expected too much. I cannot WAIT for the third flick, if it ever gets back on its feet monetarily. It's popularity is actually not based off a comparison to RIDDICK at all, and is the fact that everyone expected it to be absolute garbage and not at all the fun, popcorn, cheesy genre flick that it was, and a rollicking hour and a half.

I would also like to point out that VALHALLA RISING was the effing FARTHEST thing from pleasant. It was artsy, no frigging dialogue, existential, film arthouse bullshit that is masquerading as a film. Seriously, when that fourth chapter was called "Hell on earth" or whatever I agreed with the screen, I was in hell. It joins the ranks of such wastes of time as GUMMO, and EYES WIDE SHUT. I effing HATED VALHALLA RISING with a vigour you cannot begin to comprehend.

....

That said WorryWort...diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 17 November 2011 - 01:05 AM

[Slow Ben]

worrywort, on 17 November 2011 - 12:54 AM, said:

I watched Pitch Black, which wasn't very good. I can only assume its reputation has grown in contrast to Chronicles of Riddick and not really on its own terms. It was a by the numbers attrition movie with only a couple noteworthy kills, and I'd give it like 4 out of 10 Predators. The premise and the actual alien creatures were cool though, as was Keith David.

Thank you.


I thought i was the only nerd on here that didnt like it.







I've watched nothing but chick flicks with the ole lady this week, so i'll spare you.

[worry]

Well, I don't wanna rip something you like apart, I definitely agree with the different strokes philosophy. But for Slow Ben's sake, at least, so he doesn't feel so alone out there, I'll explain further...and if you wanna read it anyway, QT, you certainly can (it contains Pitch Black SPOILERS, of course):

I went in knowing it was a sci-fi group attrition movie with a good rep and wanting to enjoy it, so no ulterior motives on that side of things. I guess you could say I hoped it lived up to the genre beats while simultaneously being a bit elevated on the character side of things...like Alien or Predator. If I had any "unfair" expectations, I suppose I was also expecting a horror element as well, which never materialized. It telegraphs who is gonna die next so there is virtually no suspense. I thought Keith David, Cole Hauser, the Riddick wanna-be kid, and the female lead were all decent characters, but I don't like Riddick (as a character, not personally). The three disciple kids were non-entities, as were the Australian and the seemingly fierce brunette woman (who ultimately did nothing). The relic collector though was the most problematic...cowardice was established, but running from the group towards the dark while they were surrounded was nonsense, just kind of an excuse to knock the lights out for everybody.

That said, there were two scenes I loved. The entire opening crash landing was beautiful and suspenseful the whole way through. Very awesome. And despite my dislike of how they forced the relic guy's death, the actual moment where it goes from black to him lighting the flare and finding himself surrounded -- I can imagine that being the idea that sparked the rest of the movie, and it's a good one.

Anyways, I don't plan to follow up with the sequel, though I suppose I'll still eventually play the video game (I know I'm late, I just never had an xbox when it was a current-gen system). I think playing as Riddick would up the suspense (which again, the movie had zero of for me after the crash).

[amphibian]

Valhalla Rising was very Malick-ian in terms of where it went story-wise. It was as if someone took an experimental short story and turned it into a movie with some intense moments.

I liked it, but wished it had gone a bit further story-wise. Mads Mikkleson is badass.

[worry]

That's kind of exactly what I was thinking, in terms of what I did like and what I wanted more of. Malick, Kim Ki-Duk, and a little David Lynch are what it reminded me of, though I haven't heard they were actual influences, just my personal touchstones. I've heard Herzog was an influence, but I've never seen any of his fiction movies (unless you favor the Grizzly Man conspiracies), and a couple more European movies I haven't heard of.

[amphibian]

There's a special edition of Riddick that has a few extra minutes added. Watch that. It's actually a very worthwhile sci-fi goofy good time movie.

Haven't played the video game, but I've heard it's even better than the movies and I will eventually work my way through it.

[Abyss]

No one really expected anything from PITCH BLACK when it was released. It was practically under the radar, Diesel wasn't a big deal, etc. So when it turned out to be good sf fun for what it was and generated some buzz, it was a pleasant surprise.

RIDDICK was the opposite. Massively marketed as a sweeping sf epic, part one of a trilogy to match Star Wars, Judy Dench and a cast of thousands, etc etc. It wasn't. Cue fiscal fail, more or less.

I'm still surprised that there's any appetite to attempt another one.

[amphibian]

It's my opinion that Chronicles of Riddick actually achieved the Star Wars-type grandeur. The movie itself was great fun and it's a pleasure to watch Thandie Newton hiss at Karl Urban while Colm Feore evil overlords it up.

I think the problem lay in the title - if they'd just called it Riddick that'd have been great - and in the expectations for it. A slower build would have been better. It worked for Gladiator - the February release, the fall re-release with a bigger marketing campaign.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 17 November 2011 - 02:54 AM, said:

Valhalla Rising was very Malick-ian in terms of where it went story-wise. It was as if someone took an experimental short story and turned it into a movie with some intense moments.

I liked it, but wished it had gone a bit further story-wise. Mads Mikkleson is badass.

Funnily enough I saw the film at the Toronto Int. Film Fest and Mads was actually in attendance and I got to meet him after. He IS badass, and really nice in person. Sadly, I cared not for the film.

[JLV]

Step Siblings are home from college. Watching Harry Potter 7 (part 1) right now. Seems like a lot of woods sitting But we're preparing for part 2 tonight, because my brother has never seen it or something.

I'm excited for Harry Potter directed by Michael Bay