[stone monkey]

QuickTidal, on 28 August 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

It was the most recent version of the mo-capped animation they pioneered for THE POLAR EXPRESS...so you get that kind of uncanny valley in between live action and CG animated. Which you are right, was a huge mistake on their part. Instead they should have gone for full on animation or live action....these in between films are NOT good. The only one that gets a pass is the most recent A CHRISTMAS CAROL...but even that is mostly due to Dickens and not Robert Zemeckis and Co.

However, the reason to watch ALL of Beowulf...is that Neil Gaiman wrote the script...which IS quality....you just have to get past the cruddy animation.

tbh As a big fan of the original, I was disappointed to see so many liberties being taken with the story. You can see the logic behind them, what with the missing parts in the original manuscripts and the need for a story arc that actually means something to the kind of people you want to come and watch it, but as someone who has read it a bunch of times I felt they were unnecessary.


I'm not all that sold on the creature design of Grendel either; I felt they included all the tumours and whatnot simply for the sake of grotesquerie. Grendel is supposed to be horrible to behold, but that is because he inspires terror and loathing and not just because he looks diseased.

I saw Dredd over this weekend and thought it was actually okay. Far closer in tone to the comics, which occupy a certain place in the hearts of British comic book fans of a certain age, than the Stallone abomination was.

I also saw Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, which was entertainingly insane (although probably not as insane as it could/should have been, given Neveldine & Taylor were involved)

[McLovin]

Watched IN TIME. I remember seeing the trailer in the theater and wanting to go see it, but never got the chance. Nabbed it on DVR and watched (thank you free HBO weekend!). Not that great, good enough to kill an evening.

[Illuyankas]

If you're late like me and haven't watched The Cabin In The Woods GO DO IT NOW

NOW GOD DAMN IT NOW

[QuickTidal]

Illuyankas, on 16 September 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

If you're late like me and haven't watched The Cabin In The Woods GO DO IT NOW

NOW GOD DAMN IT NOW

Agree.

And do it before someone tells you about it.

[polishgenius]

I saw Cabin in the Woods yesterday as it happens (it's only just out in Germany it seems). I found it enormously predictable, though I had seen the trailer. It was still enjoyable, but not more so than, say, many episodes of Supernatural (it felt like one of the 'funny ones' of that in tone).

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 17 September 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

I saw Cabin in the Woods yesterday as it happens (it's only just out in Germany it seems). I found it enormously predictable, though I had seen the trailer. It was still enjoyable, but not more so than, say, many episodes of Supernatural (it felt like one of the 'funny ones' of that in tone).

If you tell me you guessed what was going to happen I'm going to call you a filthy, filthy liar PG!



No way in hell you guessed it.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 17 September 2012 - 07:47 PM

[polishgenius]

I'd worked out that *BEWARE THE MASSIVE SPOILERS OF DOOM HONESTLY I MAY BE KNOCKING IT A BIT BUT THE LESS YOU KNOW THE BETTER PEOPLE ABOVE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN IT*

Spoiler

the office people were an organisation causing horror scenarios to protect the world from slumbering evil by the end of the opening conversation. In fairness, it was in large part a lucky guess/massively flukey intuition - a bunch of logical leaps stemming from a vague association of the opening credits style with Blade.
Some of the other stuff was obvious though. Like the stoner couldn't be dead, he was built up too much, and it was off-screen. The only thing that really surprised me was that the security guard with all the questions ended up dying almost in the background and to no effect whatsoever in the longer run.
Admittedly, the unicorn would have got me if an overly keen fangirl hadn't blabbed in my presence that there was one in it.

So yeah, I'm a dirty filthy liar.

This post has been edited by polishgenius: 17 September 2012 - 09:23 PM

[stone monkey]

I've had a bit of time to think about it, so here's my thoughts on Dredd

First of all: I wouldn't necessarily class myself as a fan of the character, but I am a British male sf fan in his 40s, so 2000AD and the character of Judge Dredd are a significant part of my childhood. There's a story about a US comic book writer who was curious as to why British comic book fans (and writers) of a certain age are all a bit odd; the answer is that we grew up reading 2000AD and other British Boys comics in the 70s and 80s, which were cynical, satirical, excessively and sadistically violent, subversive and profoundly anti-authoritarian. Which brings us to Dredd


They've done something quite interesting with the film; it's not really about Dredd at all, it's about Anderson. This is actually a smart move, as the character of Dredd has nowhere to go. He starts and finishes the movie as essentially the same person (barring a small and entirely obvious change of mind). He just is. And that's fine because it's true to the character; Dredd doesn't change because he can't - and he shouldn't.

They've also kept the ambivalence about the characters. Dredd and Anderson are the embodiment of a fascist state, their actions might be heroic (at times) but what they represent is not. From time to time the film reminds us of that.

Spoiler

Anderson's summary execution of a perp comes back to haunt her when she meets his widow...Who does not know (and doesn't find out) that she's a widow yet

They've also done something interesting with the world; they've grounded it in reality. This isn't a neon lit, hyper advanced city of the future, it's more a gigantic, festering exaggeration of the cities of today. For the most part it works, although the contemporary vehicles and firearms do jar you out of the make believe at times (this I expect, is primarily due to the film's relatively small budget)

This film is violent. I mean, it's really violent. There's no skimping on the gore. There's blood and brains everywhere. Which also works. Comic book movies (barring notable exceptions like 300) have tended to studiously avoid the consequences of violence in their search for a wider audience. This one is uncompromising. The casual brutality of the source material is very present. Interestingly, the women in this film, unlike in most action movies, are not simply there to be victims, tittilation or damsels in distress. They can, and do, look after themselves very effectively.

The slow-motion effects, showing the viewer the effect of a fantastical drug, are actually quite neat. The washed out colours of the world become super saturated, and mundane (and sometimes horrific) actions become paradoxically beautiful. You can see why people might actually want to take a drug like that.

Acting wise, most acquit themselves moderately well. Karl Urban channels the Dirty Harry-era Clint Eastwood that served as inspiration for the character in the first place. Olivia Thirlby has a trickier job as Anderson, being the audiences viewpoint character, but manages it. Lena Heady is a suitably wicked, if broadly drawn villain.

The film doesn't outstay its welcome and ,to quote Hobbes, is "nasty, brutish and short". But in a good way. It's not a great moment in cinema history, by any stretch of the imagination, but it pretty much succeeds at everything it sets out to do.

[Macros]

Saw three films on the plane.

Men in black three.
Blegh, better than two and a neat ending but I'll not be running to see it again.

The Avengers, after the hype this thoroughly underwhelmed me,predictable as get out and just too much in it. The characters serve better alone on the big screen. Keep the avengers for a high profile tv run, with like 10 1.5 hour episodes.

I can't for the life of me remember what the third film I watched was. Man it must have been dull

[Gothos]

So I just watched... "Let the Right One In". It's a swedish film, and as could be expected, it was grim and sad. Not exactly a horror film, despite being about vampires, but I recommend it nevertheless. A beautiful, heart-gripping (at least to me) story of friendship, neccesity, loyalty and, in fact, loneliness.

[worry]

Indeed, indeed.

[QuickTidal]

Gothos, on 19 September 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

So I just watched... "Let the Right One In". It's a swedish film, and as could be expected, it was grim and sad. Not exactly a horror film, despite being about vampires, but I recommend it nevertheless. A beautiful, heart-gripping (at least to me) story of friendship, neccesity, loyalty and, in fact, loneliness.

Wait, is it 2008 again?

[Gothos]

QuickTidal, on 19 September 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

Wait, is it 2008 again?

Your point being.... what, exactly?

[Obdigore]

Gothos, on 20 September 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

QuickTidal, on 19 September 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

Wait, is it 2008 again?

Your point being.... what, exactly?

Hes going all hipster on you. 'I saw that film before it was released!' Damn Canadians!

[worry]

Haha, calling QT a hipster of all things just might set him off.

[QuickTidal]

I do hate hipsters.

[Morgoth]

QuickTidal, on 20 September 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

I do hate hipsters.

You hated hipsters before it became popular

[dktorode]

Gothos, on 20 September 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

QuickTidal, on 19 September 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

Wait, is it 2008 again?

Your point being.... what, exactly?

to be fair...the hollywood remake of Let The Right One In has already been released like a year ago.
Its like you where trying to explain to us that you had just watched this swedish movie called "Girl With a Dragon Tattoo"
When i read your post i too felt stuck in a time warp...

[Gothos]

I've not even heard of it until about a week ago, nor the remake for that matterr... when I heard of it, I decided as usual to go after the original. I'm thinking it was a good move.

Wouldn't think watching movies older than from this year would be a faux pas.

[amphibian]

Gothos, on 20 September 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

I've not even heard of it until about a week ago, nor the remake for that matterr... when I heard of it, I decided as usual to go after the original. I'm thinking it was a good move.

Wouldn't think watching movies older than from this year would be a faux pas.

Only ones from 2008. It was a awkward year.