What film did you watch last night?

Chasing Amy - Been a long time since i last saw it, ide forgotten how good it is, especially the ending, when Holden sits down with Alyssa & Banky to settle there collective differences, it's such a cringe inducing face palm moment. 8.5/10
 
DampCat said:
This is a pretty common feeling about the films, and it's one (as an aspiring filmmaker) ive spent many hours considering. I'll attempt to try and figure out with you, so i apologise for the long post.

I didnt like the books. I felt it chock-full of boring, meandering wishy-wash. It's great if you like leaves and poetry and family trees but as a story, it's an incredibly difficult read. Herein, however, lies the problem.

LOTR is not a story. Not really. What Tolkien did was literally create a world. He created a planet with a huge population and history and fully working languages with grammar and tense and evolution of their own. The book wasnt a story, it was a legend. It could almost have been a real history. There was, of course, a story within it. Of Frodo and a ring and some wizards and whatnot; but it's really buried in there in what is, without argument, quite a difficult read.

Now here's where the translation to film is interesting.

The story translates relatively well to film, as it turns out. As a basic structure, i mean. in reality the story is 30+ hours long so an absolute transfer is impossible and in any case, people who argue that a film "doesnt follow the book" dont truly understand how films work. And thats ok. If a film is good, you shouldnt notice how films work. It should literally never enter your thoughts. You should never say "that part was too long" or "that was too fast" because a truly good film is like a truly good pie... everything just works well together and you're left considering what a damn tasty pie it was; not trying to figure out which ingredient stood out the most and why it bothered you.

So the merits of the LOTR film wasn't really the story. We all know Frodo and Sam are a bit pro-homo, and Frodo is a massive whiney git by the end and there are 8 endings that drag out. That's never been in contention. The merits in LOTR is the sheer production of the film series.

If you're interested in the way films are made, the special features for LOTR are truly incredible. It's almost impossible to even describe the sheer scale of the production to someone who isnt interested in film production. But i'll give it a bash.

An entire economy for an actual country was rebuilt on the back of these films. The sets were beyond anything made before for any film. And they were made twice, once big and once small. And i dont mean just the walls and doors, i mean every knob, accessory and detail. The sheer scale of the production in terms of man hours and actual hours. Hobbiton, for example, famously built 2 years before filming to allow all the flowers to grow in and look like a working, worn in village. Edoras, built on an actual mountain in full scale with each bit carried up by helicopter. I can think of 2 completely brand new ways of filmmaking invented on the set of LOTR: Forced perspective with a moving camera, never done before. A new computer program that was designed to create thousands of "extras" that all acted independently and reacted to their environment. These are big deals.

So to cut this short (i could honestly talk at great length about this, it's my passion), the high praise for LOTR is actually quite the opposite of what you describe. Most of the "fanboys" from the books dont like the films. Christopher Tolkien absolutely despises the films. There were certain changes made to the story to allow for a film translation as filmmaking doesnt follow the same conventions as writing a novel (we can discuss that too but ive typed enough!). Most of the praise for the films comes from the sheer, unmatched scale of the behemoth production. It had never been done before and it hasnt been done since. It truly changed the way films are made (consider it yourself, how many films since 2001 are trilogies? People are willing to watch a story stretched over several episodes now).

If you dont like them, that's fine, i can actually totally understand it. Im in love with them, but not for the story. I can totally see why people would find it irritating and slow. I try to not be a fanboy about it, but i do genuinely find the project fascinating and awe inspiring.

Interestingly the studio initially refused to let The Hobbit become a trilogy of films. Jackson had to beg them over and over, as they were bringing material in from Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales as well as just The Hobbit. They did that to give a more complete view of Middle Earth, and so that it ties in easier with LOTR as a work of fiction, not just as a prequel.

Sorry. Giant Wall of Text Crits You for A Billion Damage.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. To film makers, and any viewer, the sets are fantastic and the production is huge. It deserves all the praise it gets for that, although that could be interpreted as being some what pretentious. There is no denying that the series is epic in this respect and I understand how that appeals to a film maker or any movie nut. Ultimately however I don't think that should be what defines whether it is a great movie or not. It also didn't detract from the fact that the entire affair was truly boring. The plot was pretty much linear. Hobbits go on an adventure. The hobbits meet an obstacle. The hobbits defeat the obstacle. They continue their adventure. Rinse, repeat for 9 hours. You're right, it is a series. I think it would have been better placed as a TV series over many episodes, like Game of Thrones or something. That way it wouldn't be up there in that top 250 list amongst many of my beloved films deserved of the top spots :p

Anyhow, I'm sure this has all been discussed years ago. I suspect the same from the Hobbit series so I'm staying away.
 
Skyfall - 6/10

As far as bond films go I quite liked it. Lots of typical ridiculous stunts and action only achievable by the man himself. I like Javier Bardem and I always love Dench. I liked that we got some more story/background on the man that is Bond. Liked the ending too.

Got a bit annoyed by the cheesy spunky Q and his computer hocus pocus - yeah I know Bond is supposed to be full of cheesy end of scene lines and almost winking at the camera feel but the young Q just went a little too cheese for me. Was also annoyed with the holes in the plot.

Overall enjoyed however. Would watch again for some easy entertainment (I pretty much reviewed every bond film with one sentence there).
 
Last edited:
Snow White and The Huntsman

Seriously, it's terrible. It just feels like scene after scene of changes, nothing coherent or convincing, especially expressionless what's her face. Awful.

4/10

(Can't believe I wasted 2 hours of my life on it)
 
serendipity (gf put it on...) 6/10

Like all romantic films it follows a pattern, but like like John cusak and the main woman is pretty fit! Plus its more comically predictable than most, partly because a friend from uni detailed the who film one evening whilst watching High Fidelity, a conversation I can't forget just because she is worse than me for film/tv spoiling (and I am terrible at that, do it for every simpsons episode).
 
Never forget Hard Target, saw it at the cinema when it came out.

One full family bag of minstrals later, the abscess in my back tooth was in full flow, unbelivable pain for the next 18hrs before i could get to the dentist to rip me off and make it worse:)

VD at the hight of his powers though, definately grew a fetish for blue jeans and denim shirts at the time, definately kick ass... Lance Henriksen is just pure nasty.

Flight of the navigator was doing allright the other night when i watched it, just when the robot computer thingy started spouting the mind of the a 13 year old, kinda hit home that wasn't me anymore, thus ruining the nostalgia:/ Aww well.
 
I loved the Flight of the Navigator when I was a kid. I saw it when I was about 13.
I haven't seen it as an adult, but I do think that kids in 2013 would still find it a good movie. Great music, too.
 
Jack Reacher the other day at the cinema, Tom Cruise was wrong for the part.

Still 7/10 its a worthy, action packed watch.

Also watched Beasts of the Southern Wild.

Amazing, get it watched. 9/10
 
Mr Jones said:
Snow White and The Huntsman

Seriously, it's terrible. It just feels like scene after scene of changes, nothing coherent or convincing, especially expressionless what's her face. Awful.

4/10

(Can't believe I wasted 2 hours of my life on it)
Click to expand...

Agreed. I went to the cinema to see this. One of the worst films ive seen in a while. Almost zero entertainment. It was mainly ruined by Kristen Stewart. They gave her almost zero lines and all she did was strike moody poses (as that is all she can do). I wanted the witch to win and kill her :p
 
Jono8 said:
Agreed. I went to the cinema to see this. One of the worst films ive seen in a while. Almost zero entertainment. It was mainly ruined by Kristen Stewart. They gave her almost zero lines and all she did was strike moody poses (as that is all she can do). I wanted the witch to win and kill her :p
Click to expand...

Preferably 10 minutes into the film to end everyone's suffering :p
 
Thursday

Expendables 2 6/10- Good action and quirky comments between Arnold "Ill be back" n whatnot but nothing on the first one




Lastnight

Tower Heist 4/10

Some funny moments, but apart from that not much going for it

Limitless -8/10

Watched this twice now and have enjoyed it, good story just wish the pills where true :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom