Movies The Movie Thread! - Continuation

[Nuno]

About the Hobbit : is the 48 fps version worth ?

YES.

Huge YES. I don't get why on earth some of the critics are negative towards the 48 fps capture. What the hell. The entire movie seemed incredibly smooth and was beautiful to look at. The idiots must not know what fps even means. Not to mention in 3D fps is cut in half, thus 48 fps becomes 24, which is the normal capture rate movies are captured in (and become 12 fps when in 3D). Normally during 3D movies the action becomes a huge mess as the lowered fps damages the smoothness of the action too much, but Peter Jackson obviously knows the industry better than most. He figured that to have both great 3D and smooth action (and a beautiful motion picture), you need to up your game in regards of the fps to weigh up for the loss in fps when capturing in normal 24 fps.

To me the heightened fps was a stroke of genius, and the beginning of a new trend (and salvation) for 3D movies.

As for the movie content. I can only consider myself amazed. I read The Hobbit when I was a kid, so my memory is limited to broad story events, but the "extended" and extra material was thoroughly enjoyable. A lot of it I assume is taken directly from the appendixes (I haven't read them to my great shame), as Jackson himself said they would. The scene with Gollum was spectacular. My only regret is that it's truly sad that we've seen the last of Gollum, forever. Andy Serkis deserves props in the way he came back years later and once again proved how spectacular his performance was and still is. What an iconic character. The gathering at the beginning (Bag End scene) was amazing, and exactly as I remembered it. Also, Galadriel was damn hawt. Saruman was hilarious (you'll understand why when you see it). Sir Ian McKellen was amazing as Gandalf, possibly even better than in LOTR, and Martin Freeman's portrayal of Bilbo was spectacular.

One thing's for sure, I'm looking forward to a massive marathon of The Hobbit + LOTR.

 

[kkck]

I don't think I could ever handle a TH + LOTR marathon (even though I read all the books). Its just too long, I don't see how it could be done. If I recall each of the LOTRs movie is well over 3 hours long and that does not even consider extended edittions. The hobbit movies will likely be in the same league so a marathon would be anywhere between 19 and 25 hours long. I always wanted to try a star wars marathon, that is more reasonable (and perhaps I am more of a star wars fan anyways).

 

[BASED Shinigami]

^All six star wars film? Including the ridiculously long Return of the Jedi film? oh god I couldn't do it mate.

 

[kkck]

I don't know if I could pull it off however it would still be objectively easier than a LOTRs with the hobbit marathon. Each star wars movie is at least 40 minutes shorter than any LOTRS or the hobbit movie after all. Its at most 15 hours worth of movies against 20 or so....

 

[TheMoa]

I have mixed feelings about the hobitt.. but I'll not get in details since I find it difficult to express in portuguese, I'll not dare to try in english.

I did a Star Wars marathon twice, one by the released date and another in the chronological order. It was good, the problem is the headache in that starts on the 5th movie or so.

I did a LotR extended edittion marathon too... actually I'm really fond of marathons, so I enjoy them without much trouble. Rocky, Lethal Wepon, Die Hard, Bourne, Godfather, Tarantino movies. Having the free time and the snacks is all you need hahaha

 

[Crude]

I don't think there was a 48 fps option in the cinema where I watched The Hobbit. At least the version I watched was definitely not in 48 fps...

 

[BASED Shinigami]

How can people complain about a film that looks too real? I don't know but I'm seeing the Hobbit this Friday in 48 fps 3D and I expect it to be jolly good

Also, I'm going to check out Django Unchained later on this month too. That movie has seen exceptional reviews so far, and I love Jamie Foxx as an actor.

 

[TheMoa]

I didn't like how Radagast was portrayed... and I didn't like the ressurection of Azog. Also, I didn't like how he took away the providence and made it look like Gandolf called the Eagles.
But I can't express it right, these weren't the real problem
I just felt like PJ wanted to all over the movie instead of letting the universe talk by himself..

I liked the 48fps+3D and since it is a "new" technology, I don't mind the little problems. I expect it to improve with more directors adopting the tech

 

[BASED Shinigami]

Saw the Hobbit yesterday and it was worth all the hype! The new format in 3D took me a little time to get used to, but I enjoyed it for the most part. The action sequences were fun and looked absolutely amazing in 48fps. The film had beautiful scenery as well. Some of the woodland views and majestic shots of Rivendell had me holding my jaw. I'm definitely looking forward to the sequel coming out next year, and watching more films (preferably action) in 48fps.

 

[FetherMan]

Went to see "Django Unchained" yesterday and the film wasn't too bad. The story was pretty to the point and QT still hasn't lost his touch with making a great film and getting his artistic point across. The whole "slavery subject matter" was bit testy at times, but it was expected from the start.

Waiting for the "Pacific Rim" film to come, looks to be the most promising one to come out, despite it's influences of "Neon Genesis Evangelion".

 

[Naomi]

I don't know if anyone else saw Les Miserables, but I hated it. Everyone else I went with seemed to like and/or love it. So I was the only one that hated it, but I have to know if anyone else saw it and agrees with me!

The only redeeming quality for it was Anne Hathaway. She was brilliant, but considering her part is only in the first 20-30 minutes of the movie...

 

[Josef]

Has anyone here seen Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom? If so, what was your reaction to it?

---------- Post added at 01:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:23 PM ----------


This is scene was hilariously disturbing. x_x

 

[xi0]

I don't know if anyone else saw Les Miserables, but I hated it. Everyone else I went with seemed to like and/or love it. So I was the only one that hated it, but I have to know if anyone else saw it and agrees with me!

The only redeeming quality for it was Anne Hathaway. She was brilliant, but considering her part is only in the first 20-30 minutes of the movie...

Is this because it's a musical? I reaaaallly dislike musicals and I think you said once you did as well...except for Rocky Horror. I think Les Miserables has some fantastic, timeless music, but I just don't like people singing through an entire show...blegh

I might end up seeing it with my Dad since he's totally gay for it

 

[thornofcarrion]

I watched Cloud Atlas and I totally loved it. Its a spellbinding movie. Of course, it has my all time favorite Tom Hanks. It was fascinating to see the actors and actoresses playing different characters in a same movie.

Also watched, Hit and Run. It was entertaining. Not a great movie but enjoyable nevertheless.

 

[BASED Shinigami]

I saw Django Unchained last night. It was certainly a good movie. Would I call it one of the best movies of 2012? Yes. This movie is certainly the worth the price of an admission ticket. The performances were top notch (especially Samuel L Jackson gosh that man absolutely nailed his role ), and the humor will greatly entertain the viewer. I didn't like musical selection/score at times, and it had its fair share of cheesy slightly exaggerated moments (I kind of enjoyed them, but it was more like guilty pleasure). Also, this movie is incredibly long. I went to go see it at 6:40 pm and didn't get out until like 9:40 pm crazy right?! . The director could of definitely shortened some scenes or took some out completely. However, like I said it's a good movie, and frequent movie goers should definitely go see it.

---------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 PM ----------

Also, I was kind of expecting it, but man did they abuse the word nigger in that movie. I don't think I've ever heard it said so many times in one sitting for any movie. Honestly, It felt a bit excessive.

 

[kkck]

I just saw the hobbit. I have to say, I actually enjoyed the movie, it was really well done. I usually hate the whole 3d thing but seeing this one was awesome. Perhaps this was due to the movie theater getting better 3d glasses though. I could actually remember reading the book when I was 12 or 13 as I saw the movie.

I was a little disappointed about a few changes in the scenes though.

Spoiler

I was not quite a fan of what was done with the troll scene. I was actually looking forward to seeing gandalf tricking the trolls into fighting by mimicking them.
Thorin was spectacularly done IMO. I remember the book describing him as proud and noble however when I read the book all those years back I never quite imagined him as the movie portrayed him. I actually liked the movie's take on him better than my own.
If I recall gimli was actually the son of gloin. Didn't gloin get a rather small part in the movie? I seem to recall gloin being rather close to bilbo in the book but maybe my memory is fussy about that.
The gollum/bilbo bit was done spectacularly. I feel the movie could have done more to deal with the darkness which bilbo was also dealing with at the time. I guess a dark movie screen is also boring though. Dunno, maybe I am not making a shred of sense with this lol.

Not sure if I am a fan of the white council meeting. The reunion did in fact happen in the book however not at that time or with those who appeared. Was there even a point in galadriel being there?

Radagast had some charm to him however such a big deviation from the book was at large unnecessary. I could have lived with a shorter movie which did not deal with rabbits pulling a sleight or radagast being an critter lover. It got so ridiculous that when he healed the porcupine I actually thought the "disease" was going to just be a fart or something lol.

When I originally read the hobbit and the lord of the rings I got the idea that both books differed significantly in one particular point. The hobbit was not as "epic" however it had a more humorous feel to the whole thing. The lord of the rings in turn was less humorous and had more "epic" in it. I feel the movie tried to hard to be "epic" when it should indeed have focused more on the humorous aspect. The hobbit in itself is not all that epic to begin, I feel that focusing more of the comedy which was more characteristic of the book would have had a better effect. Or maybe I don't remember well the book I read over 10 years ago and I am talking out of my ass lol.

I loved the scene with the eagles. I had forgotten just how important the eagle scenes were to all the books. In turn the eagles rescuing frodo from mount doom does not seem as impressive anymore.

 

[goldb]

New trailer released for Pacific Rim:


Showing more of the giant robots and suits.

 

[Doraku]

No comments about Oscar 2013 nominees? Except Les Miserables, I think the nominees for the Best Picture are acceptable. I haven't watch Zero Dark Thirty yet, but judging from the trailer alone it looks pretty interesting.

@goldb

I heard that Pacific Rim is influenced by Evangelion, is that true?

 

[goldb]

No comments about Oscar 2013 nominees? Except Les Miserables, I think the nominees for the Best Picture are acceptable. I haven't watch Zero Dark Thirty yet, but judging from the trailer alone it looks pretty interesting.

@goldb

I heard that Pacific Rim is influenced by Evangelion, is that true?

I've just posted the full nominations list in the Oscars thread; so it can be discussed there.

I was not aware of this with Pacific Rim and Evangelion; I wouldn't be surprised if Del Torro was influenced by it, which is fine; as long as it's not considered a rip off of the anime.

 

[M3J]

Django was awesome, a definite must-watch. Some scenes were brutal, though.