Re: Just Watched
« Reply #60 on: December 28, 2013, 05:00:59 AM »
It should have been one movie, but they recognized the opportunity to sucker loads of fanboys who can't wait to spend their money on anything LOTR, and stretched it out to the point where it's just ridiculous.  I mean, seriously.  It was a simple, short book with some entertaining vignettes and a spectacular climactic battle.  They could have done it so easily in one movie and it could have been great.

So much of the first movie was filler.  I imagine this one is the same. I mean stretching 300 pages into 8 hours.  Give me a fucking break.

I don't see how they could turn it into a single movie. 2 movies maybe, but not 1. Too much crap happens, you would have to jump directly from event to event in order to fit it all in, leaving no time for anything else.

I'd prefer 3 bloated movies to 1 awful one.

So I imagine you must have really hated the original LOTR trilogy since they crammed so much into a single trilogy.  I mean, given that it's five fucking times as long as The Hobbit in print but about the same length on screen.

The original trilogy was also nothing like the books. It was completely rearranged for pacing, and whole events were removed and changed to fit within the movies. It's impossible to make a 100% faithful movie out of the books, what matters is whether the movies are good. And they are.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3159
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #61 on: December 28, 2013, 05:26:39 AM »

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1845
  • I summon my love back to me
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #62 on: December 28, 2013, 05:29:24 AM »
It should have been one movie, but they recognized the opportunity to sucker loads of fanboys who can't wait to spend their money on anything LOTR, and stretched it out to the point where it's just ridiculous.  I mean, seriously.  It was a simple, short book with some entertaining vignettes and a spectacular climactic battle.  They could have done it so easily in one movie and it could have been great.

So much of the first movie was filler.  I imagine this one is the same. I mean stretching 300 pages into 8 hours.  Give me a fucking break.

I don't see how they could turn it into a single movie. 2 movies maybe, but not 1. Too much crap happens, you would have to jump directly from event to event in order to fit it all in, leaving no time for anything else.

I'd prefer 3 bloated movies to 1 awful one.

So I imagine you must have really hated the original LOTR trilogy since they crammed so much into a single trilogy.  I mean, given that it's five fucking times as long as The Hobbit in print but about the same length on screen.

The original trilogy was also nothing like the books. It was completely rearranged for pacing, and whole events were removed and changed to fit within the movies. It's impossible to make a 100% faithful movie out of the books, what matters is whether the movies are good. And they are.

Not to mention that about 95% of the LotR books were Tolkien telling you what the rocks beneath their feet looked like, so once you cut out all that and Tom Bombadil's fifty pages of singing there was substantially less plot to cover.

That said, I do think it should've been two movies.
Quote from: garygreen date=1480782226
i also took an online quiz that said i was a giraffe.  and i guess you're dumb enough to believe that i must be because the internet said so.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3159
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #63 on: December 28, 2013, 05:33:19 AM »
Not to mention that about 95% of the LotR books were Tolkien telling you what the rocks beneath their feet looked like
I have been saying this exact same phrase for so long now. It's why I could never finish the trilogy, I got so tired of the excruciatingly detailed descriptions.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 03:32:56 PM by rooster »

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1785
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #64 on: December 28, 2013, 06:27:05 AM »
Okay, I'll allow that the excruciating detail of the LOTR series makes a difference, but I can't imagine it makes that much of a difference.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

Re: Just Watched
« Reply #65 on: December 28, 2013, 06:49:21 AM »
It should have been one movie, but they recognized the opportunity to sucker loads of fanboys who can't wait to spend their money on anything LOTR, and stretched it out to the point where it's just ridiculous.  I mean, seriously.  It was a simple, short book with some entertaining vignettes and a spectacular climactic battle.  They could have done it so easily in one movie and it could have been great.

So much of the first movie was filler.  I imagine this one is the same. I mean stretching 300 pages into 8 hours.  Give me a fucking break.

I don't see how they could turn it into a single movie. 2 movies maybe, but not 1. Too much crap happens, you would have to jump directly from event to event in order to fit it all in, leaving no time for anything else.

I'd prefer 3 bloated movies to 1 awful one.

So I imagine you must have really hated the original LOTR trilogy since they crammed so much into a single trilogy.  I mean, given that it's five fucking times as long as The Hobbit in print but about the same length on screen.

The original trilogy was also nothing like the books. It was completely rearranged for pacing, and whole events were removed and changed to fit within the movies. It's impossible to make a 100% faithful movie out of the books, what matters is whether the movies are good. And they are.

Not to mention that about 95% of the LotR books were Tolkien telling you what the rocks beneath their feet looked like, so once you cut out all that and Tom Bombadil's fifty pages of singing there was substantially less plot to cover.

That said, I do think it should've been two movies.

SPOILERS:

No idea how they would have made 2 movies out of it. Hobbit 2 doesn't slow down very often, and even if you trim out all of the extra scenes and characters, I think it would still have 2 hours left. Some people were even bitching that not enough time was spent in places like Murkwood. We only got up to Smaug going at Laketown, so there's plenty of ground to cover in a third movie.

*

Offline Crudblud

  • *
  • Posts: 1630
  • A Moist Respectable Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #66 on: January 01, 2014, 06:06:10 PM »
The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser (Werner Herzog)
Classically indescribable Herzog takes the true story of Kaspar Hauser and uses it to conduct a social experiment, allowing the audience to see Western civilisation through the eyes of a true alien. Tragic, touching, astounding and funny, the character of Hauser fits perfectly with Herzog's idiosyncratic filmmaking style. A near masterpiece.

Blade Runner (Ridley Scott)
Ridley Scott has always been a great worldbuilder, even in his worst films, but here he manages to strike a balance between worldbuilding and storytelling he has seldom replicated, helped in no small part by a great performance by Rutger Hauer as the all-too-human replicant Roy Batty. However, the least believable romance captured on film since Moment By Moment casts a nagging shadow over the second half.

Saddam Hussein

Re: Just Watched
« Reply #67 on: January 01, 2014, 06:22:31 PM »
And of course, it inspired one of the better sidequests of F3.  But that's its own thread, let's not derail this one.  Yes, it is a fine movie.  I first watched when I was pretty young, and I remember being really bored, but now that I'm older I can appreciate the intelligence and subtlety behind it a lot more.  I think I may have been expecting an action movie before I first saw it, which is just another part of my youthful foolishness.

*

Offline Crudblud

  • *
  • Posts: 1630
  • A Moist Respectable Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #68 on: January 01, 2014, 06:34:10 PM »
And of course, it inspired one of the better sidequests of F3.  But that's its own thread, let's not derail this one.  Yes, it is a fine movie.  I first watched when I was pretty young, and I remember being really bored, but now that I'm older I can appreciate the intelligence and subtlety behind it a lot more.  I think I may have been expecting an action movie before I first saw it, which is just another part of my youthful foolishness.

Yeah, Kaspar Hauser is an unusual film.

Saddam Hussein

Re: Just Watched
« Reply #69 on: January 01, 2014, 08:27:25 PM »
hehehehe very funny

Also, modern medical opinions have taken a fairly skeptical view of Kaspar Hauser's claims.

*

Offline Crudblud

  • *
  • Posts: 1630
  • A Moist Respectable Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #70 on: January 02, 2014, 12:53:08 AM »
hehehehe very funny

Also, modern medical opinions have taken a fairly skeptical view of Kaspar Hauser's claims.
You looked that up just for me, didn't you? Oh sadaam... <3

also

Wild at Heart (David Lynch)
Seen it a million times, still captivates me like no other film can. Watch it right now.

*

Offline Sean

  • *
  • Posts: 2239
  • Shitty liberal.
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #71 on: January 02, 2014, 09:07:55 PM »
Watched season one of American Horror Story. I watched season 2 (Asylum) a while back, i thought that was definitely better. The first season was a jumbled incoherent mess, and was dumb. However, Jessica Lange is a great actress, imo.
Quote from: sandokhan
You are rushying to unwarranted conclusions

*

Offline Crudblud

  • *
  • Posts: 1630
  • A Moist Respectable Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #72 on: January 03, 2014, 01:51:00 AM »
Death Wish (Michael Winner)
Unlike the reputation the Death Wish name would later come to hold by merit of its increasingly bloody and ridiculous sequels, the original is actually quite a reasonable and dare I say realistic thriller that sees a well-to-do man driven to vigilantism by a senseless attack on his family. A substantial portion of the film is spent developing Charles Bronson's now iconic character, and as such the switch from mild mannered office worker to streetcleaner extraordinaire is understandable, helped further in the believability department by the fact that he isn't gunning down hundreds of criminals with a magic never-need-to-reload gun in the manner of a Stallone or Schwarzenegger. Highly entertaining throughout.

Transmorphers (Leigh Scott)
What happens when you take the cast of Eastenders and insert them into FMV sequences from an unreleased Command & Conquer game? Transmorphers may be the closest we will ever come to discovering the answer to this pertinent question.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 01:55:55 AM by Crudblud »

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1785
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #73 on: January 03, 2014, 02:59:14 AM »
Watched season one of American Horror Story. I watched season 2 (Asylum) a while back, i thought that was definitely better. The first season was a jumbled incoherent mess, and was dumb. However, Jessica Lange is a great actress, imo.

It was dumb, but it was fun dumb.  Season 2 was definitely much better.  I feel like Season 3, at least so far, is more on par with the first than the second.  And Jessica Lange is always awesome.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

*

Offline Sean

  • *
  • Posts: 2239
  • Shitty liberal.
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #74 on: January 03, 2014, 03:03:28 AM »
I feel like Lange's performance overshadowed of the main roles, I don't know the actor's name but I thought Tate was a good, well played character. Them and the maid are who made the dumb show fairly decent. In fact I thought the leads were not very good, especially the mother. Lange was fantastic in Asylum as well.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 03:05:24 AM by Sean »
Quote from: sandokhan
You are rushying to unwarranted conclusions

*

Offline Foxbox

  • *
  • Posts: 956
  • We live inside a dream.
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #75 on: January 03, 2014, 07:46:37 PM »

Wild at Heart (David Lynch)
Seen it a million times, still captivates me like no other film can. Watch it right now.

I just watched it finally. It is certainly a wild film. I really enjoyed it, though still not as much as my favorite Lynch films.

*

Offline Sean

  • *
  • Posts: 2239
  • Shitty liberal.
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #76 on: January 10, 2014, 03:35:22 AM »
I've been watching a lot of Louie on Netflix. It really is a brilliant show. I love Louis C.K.'s stand-up. All his specials are great. He writes, directs, and stars in a sitcom as a fictional version of himself, and his shitty, awkward life. The show intelligently intertwines stand-up bits that are usually loosely related to the theme of the episode. A little more slow paced humor than the traditional sitcom, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Quote from: sandokhan
You are rushying to unwarranted conclusions

*

Offline Foxbox

  • *
  • Posts: 956
  • We live inside a dream.
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #77 on: January 11, 2014, 12:33:11 AM »
Her (Spike Jonze)

This film is definitely something special. I had been waiting to see this for the last few years, and it really blew me away. Joaquin Phoenix was amazing as usual, as well as Amy Adams. Spike Jonze's direction was great, but so was his writing. I certainly am looking forward to him writing more of his films. The cinematography definitely stood out, and was used very effectively. I also really loved the music and the score by Arcade Fire.
Her is a very beautiful experience that is heartbreaking and sad, but also incredibly uplifting and hopeful. I felt a strong personal connection to this film, and I was in tears through a good amount of it. But when it was over and the credits were rolling, I just sat there feeling better than I have in a long time. I have to see it again soon.


I loved this film very much and I strongly recommend it.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 12:37:29 AM by Foxy »

*

Offline Crudblud

  • *
  • Posts: 1630
  • A Moist Respectable Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #78 on: January 27, 2014, 08:03:40 AM »
Out of the Past (Jacques Tourneur)
Good but not quite great film noir with Robert Mitchum as a seemingly well to do man on the run from his shady past. Some really fine performances, particularly from Kirk Douglas, and a pretty complex plot make for entertaining viewing, but ultimately I was left feeling that it didn't quite come together.

A History of Violence (David Cronenberg)
Unlike Mitchum, Viggo Mortensen's seemingly well to do man has managed to suppress all memories of his shady past and now leads a quiet life in a small town, complete with wife and kids and a job running a local diner. A lot of people think Cronenberg left horror behind entirely in the 2000s, but this is just as much a horror story as The Fly or Videodrome, and like those films is a meditation on the psychology of personal transformation, the animalistic side of man and man's potential for extreme violence. The plot is very straightforward, alarmingly so by Dave's usual standards, but this is a very internal film where the inner workings of the characters are the focus above all else.

*

Offline Ghost Spaghetti

  • *
  • Posts: 908
  • Don't look in that mirror. It's absolutely furious
    • View Profile
Re: Just Watched
« Reply #79 on: January 27, 2014, 10:01:36 AM »
Inside Llewin Davis

A bitter, scathing but funny slice of life of a failed musician atty the birth of the folk music scene in new York. as always, the coen brothers have struck gold.

Hopefully it doesn't win an Oscar, though. Considering the nature of the film it would be strangely inappropriate.