The Movies Discussion Thread

[danielcaux]

I went to see the new James Bond film during the week and enjoyed it. For sure it's hokum but it was enjoyable all the same and the action scenes were really good.

The cinematography was excellent, as usual with Roger Deakins. My favorite scene was the fight at the skyscraper, the juxtaposition of shadow silhouettes over "futuristic" neon light signs was mesmerizing. The opening scene with the motrocycle chase, bulldozer vs. train and Bond's falling to death part was quite fun too, as well as the animated credits sequence. Those were the highlights for me, and that homoerotic scene between the two double Os I guess.

[wiped]

i saw "argo" last weekend. it was really excellent. ben affleck is a helluva director.

+1 ... very enjoyable.

Try your best to avoid the online debate as to whether Affleck portrayed the Iranians fairly ... a serious amount of toss been flung about.

[moom]

Its definitely the best bond movie ive seen to date

Not the best to me, but definitely better than Quantum Of Solace, which to me was just random, uninspired, emotionless. Of the three latest movies I'll always pick Casino Royale, because I think it's more stylish, deep and not so much action-packed.
I've seen all other Bond movies, at least the official ones definitely, and... haha... as much as I love Connery as Bond, I prefer him in later films like Indiana Jones or maybe that movie with Nicholas Cage; my most favorite Bond is actually Roger Moore - again, it's about aesthetics to me.

Also, Casino Royale contains my most favorite Bond opening song - You Know My Name by Chris Cornell. As much as I know Cornell is a capable songwriter, I don't think I expected him to score Bond so well.

Skyfall's tag lines, to me, are "Old and new, past and future, fall and rise, death and life". Overall, I like it. As for the opening song, at first I thought it was just an okay rip-off YKMN, but when I heard a local singer, Elina Born, cover it, I liked it much more. Elina brought more sour notes where Adele didn't, giving more edge to the song. And I'm actually glad she cut the song to fit the format, because Adele's version just drags near the end.
A funny thing is, when I listen to the instrumental version, I sing lyrics from Guano Apes' Don't You Turn Your Back On Me, kind of fits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v8kWhTnRAs

[danielcaux]

Watched Peter Jackson's The Hobbit, man I wish Del Toro had filmed it instead, I was completely disappointed. What a mess of a picture. The script doesn't know where to go or what themes to develope at all. Instead of following the childlike style and simple plot of Tolkien's original book, Jackson prefers to weave in a lot of subplots that feel extraneous to the main story and cut the natural rhythm and flow of it, perhaps trying to justify the adaptation of the single volume book into a 7+ hour trilogy? The direction is equally bad, at times Jackson tries to be epic but the story lacks the grandeur and majesty of the Ring pictures, as a result the battle scenes are tedious, unemotional, anticlimatic and most of them feel completely unnecessary. Then he also tries to go for a more comedic/farcical mood, like the original book, but the jokes are dumb and fall flat. And all that gore, it really feels so out of place here, all those decapitations and mutilitations in what should actually be a kids movie...

Too bad because Martin Freeman is really wonderful as Bilbo, and Andy Serkis does again a superb job as Gollum. What a waste.

And Radagast The Brown, oh man, Jackson turned a mysterious St. Francis of Assisi-like wizard into some subpar Disney goofball character!

[snifferdog]

I've stopped bothering to watch Peter Jackson films because I know they're going to be over-long, rambling and over-indulgent. Sometimes less is more. I'd much rather watch a cracking shorter film than be sitting in the cinema looking at my watch.

[danielcaux]

The Rings trilogy was pretty good though, all of them were long indeed, but they were fun, full of ideas and emotions and character developement and pretty thrilling battles. This new one was quite the opposite, almost felt like a bunch of videogame scenes stitched together with completely out place exposition dialogues. The riddles in the dark scene with Gollum was the only part where I actually felt the Tolkien/Jackson magic.

It's strange, it seem that Jackson lost his touch after the original trilogy, I haven't watch King Kong but the Lovely Bones seemed more interested in painting nice vanilla skies than in telling any engaging story, although that "almost murder" scene was really well executed, very tense and creepy with great acting by Stanley Tucci.

And talking about murder scenes, I just watched Snowtown yesterday, oh boy... what a disturbing film.

[The Gunner's Dream]

Hmmm, I always felt Jackson lost his touch after "Dead Alive". The same goes for Sam Raimi. He hasn't made a good film since Army of Darkness.

[rememberaday]

I never liked The Lord Of The Rings trilogy movies anyway. I always felt it was a horrible imitation of the books. Plus the characters had subtle but serious flaws as compared to the books in the movie. Aragorn, Faramir were all weak in the character department compared to the books.Gollum maybe the only character I like in the movies, and even then he's just a shadow of Tolien's brilliance. Also, Tolkien in his books also added a lot of life through means of poems and songs which obviously cannot be portrayed in the movies. Plus, there are aspects of the book, minor details which add charm, that are cut in the movies. Plus Tolkien's knowledge of Anglo-Saxon and medieval literature is breathtaking. Whenever I watch the movie, I feel like I'm watching the fantasy but whenever I read the books, I feel like I'm living it.

[ If you don't mind me going on a rant:

Truth be told, though, the books are no doubt far less accesible than the movies. I'm a fast and somewhat addicted reader, so I can't really tell you, but I've heard opinions that the series took quite a long time to read. It should'nt be a problem, though, since most of you can sit through songs like SOYCD or Karn Evil 9 or 60 minutes versions of Dark Star. I've yet to read the Silmarillion, but it's said that LOTR is bedtime reading compared to the Silmarillion, so I think it's going to be a tough read. Plus the Silmarillion is fantasy really but more mythopoeia.

/rant ]

Back to Jackson however, I think The Hobbit was an utter waste of time. The LOTR series was at least comparable to the books. When I read The Hobbit last December, I was enthralled by it and instantly took to the mystical fantasy. Tolkien's style of writing ensures that the reader is held by awe and mystery, but at the same time there's a sort of merriness that pervades the pages. When I first read the book, Riddles in The Dark or Out Of The Frying Pan, Into The Fire didn't really seem scary to me, because there was always a sense that it was going to turn out good. In the case of the movie, it feels like it's a cheesy fantasy story. Peter Jackson should be punished for making such a shit interpetation of The Hobbit.

On another note however, when it comes to books and their movie versions, I think Life Of Pi is much better. I happen to enjoy the book but the movie is really well done as well. Suraj Sharma adds a whole new character to Pi and the royal bengal tiger is fabulous as well. One of the few fantasy movies that compares to their book versions.

[danielcaux]

I've yet to read the Silmarillion, but it's said that LOTR is bedtime reading compared to the Silmarillion, so I think it's going to be a tough read. Plus the Silmarillion is fantasy really but more mythopoeia.

Actually I found the Silmarillion much easier to read than The Lord Of The Rings. Perhaps because I just can't deal with loooong chapters with long-winded descriptions of landscapes and chambers and caves and swords and trees... The Silmarillion is more concise and to the point, of course that means the prose is not as elaorate and rich as LOTR, but what the hell the stories are more interesting, since it deals with the first and second ages of middle earth when there was more elven and valar magic in the world, you get more stories and tales in it and you finally can understand all those songs and legends that the people of LOTR were always talking about. Actually after reading the Silmarillion I was then able to enjoy more re-reading the rings trilogy.

A book closer in style to the LOTR would be The Children Of Hurin, which tells the story of Turin Turambar and the dragon, perhaps Tolkien's most tragical story. You should check that one out too.

[rememberaday]

A book closer in style to the LOTR would be The Children Of Hurin, which tells the story of Turin Turambar and the dragon, perhaps Tolkien's most tragical story. You should check that one out too.

I heard Children Of Hurin was part of the Silmarillion?

[henno]

i absolutely loved the hobbit, it gave me an opportunity to revist a story i had forgotten so when certain bits happened it was like i was experiencing it as a kid again.

i for one, loved the absolute detail of the movie, (watched it in 3d) and if that made the flow too slow for some, so be it, i didnt think so.

I watched the fellowship of the ring again last night and was able to compare the making with the hobbit, and for me the hobbit is better. the attention to detail in the hobbit is unsurpassed. the real and the cgi flow seamlessly, as youd expect from Weta.

As the story goes i think it did well to hold onto the childlike aspect of the original book. It was funny, it had singalongs, it was wonderous. the backstory to some of the characters were necessary im sure, for whats going to happen in the next movies, including the radagast story.

cant wait for the next one

[danielcaux]

I heard Children Of Hurin was part of the Silmarillion?

The Silmarillion is kind of like a Tolkien bible, it collects most of the history of middle earth, but the stories that uses to tell the events are more often that not in abridged versions, heavily edited by his son, in order to give the book a cohesive feel and fill everything into a single volume. In The Silmarillion you can find the events that deal with both The Children Of Hurin and The Lord Of The Rings, but the book tells everything in like 10 or 20 pages, not in the style of a novel but more like what you would find in a book that collects popular legends.