Okay. You asked for it! Hahaha. Really, my issue with the film was apparent right from the start. The film starts with a ten minute intro explaining the dwarves' plight. It felt too similar to how they began Lord of the Rings (though, less effective to me), and it also just changed the tone from the get-go. The opening line of the book was "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." The book starts small, with a simple man living simply, and he gets swept up into something very large and beyond anything he knows. The film starts grand, with exposition and shooting for something epic. I wish it had started small. I wish it had not in any way referenced the Lord of the Rings films, but rather started with Bilbo, and we learn things as he does. But Jackson seemed more concerned with Thorin and Gandalf, which killed a lot of the mystery about those characters, and often times I even forgot Bilbo was there. He didn't feel much like the protagonist, and I think that was a real misstep. We should have seen how amazing Lothlorien was to him, as he saw it. Same for the rock golems, and the eagles, etc. In fact, once the movie focused on Bilbo (Riddles in the Dark Scene) and his interactions with Gollum, is when it finally grabbed me. Up until then, it felt somewhat scattered and messy. I also wish he hadn't made so many of the characters silly. Like Radagast. I wish they hadn't gone the goofy route with him. It kind of undermines the whole "There are 5 wizards, not quite of this world, overseeing the direction of all the creatures within it" bit. Same for the dwarves. I have no issues with there being humor, but I'd have liked it less on the slapstick side. I also think they overdid the action stuff. The book never felt like an action story to me. It was definitely an adventure story, with far more running and hiding than fighting. It felt like they were stuffing action scenes into this, and I didn't really get why, other than "it looks cool." And lastly, I don't think they should have referenced LoTR at all (and I'm a big fan of those movies). Bringing back the same music, and showing scenes with Frodo and such, just made this feel like a prequel to Lord of the Rings. I wish it had been treated as a story in its own right, the way the book was. Something that stood completely on its own. I did like scenes from the movie, and the back third was notably stronger than the first two-thirds, but I had more issues than praise. I also think stretching it into 3 films feels like a money grab, but that's another rant.
I saw Django Unchained last night, and I loved it. Favorite movie this year. I've liked every movie Tarantino has ever made. He sets up scenes so well, and he does things with tension and dialogue that I just love, and this one had a surprising amount of humor. If you like his stuff, definitely don't miss it. Dicaprio and Jackson were both standouts. They were excellent.
Yes, looking forward to this one, it'll be playing in the theaters here in about 3 weeks. Just saw Cloud Atlas. I liked it very much. I loved how the story unravelled and how it has almost every movie genre in it. Also, the way the actors play different characters is really well done. It's a long movie but it didn't bother me at all.
YES. Django Unchained was fantastic. And DiCaprio's performance is even that much more amazing when you know that in the dinner scene,...that's not fake blood. DiCaprio really accidentally cut his hand and played out the take like a trooper. It was so good and added so much to the scene that Tarantino kept it. That scene was great. The humor in the film was perfect and so hilariously absurd yet fitting. Samuel L. Jackson was incredibly funny. I think he was my favorite part. I literally spent all day at the movies on Christmas day. Saw Les Miserables as well. Russell Crowe's singing is meh, but I believe it's on purpose. Stiff and reserved like his character. Hugh Jackman's vibrato is really astounding. I think it may sweep the Oscars this year. Waiting on Zero Dark Thirty... and need to see The Master when it turns up on the shelves.
I think the "Yellow Submarine" is a very good movie. A beautiful film is "The Lovely Bones." "Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain" is a great movie.
Last weekend I watched "Silent Hill", wich probably most of you have already seen it a long time ago, and I was really surprised with the production and effects. If you haven't seen it yet, you should definetly watch it.
Any Aki Kaurismaki fans here? Just picked up Drifting Clouds and Man Without a Past. Not watched them yet but was intrigued when I read a review saying they are movies about nothing. Nothing much happens yet every scene is beautiful. I've heard of him before but wasn't until my recent trip to Helsinki which sparked my interest. Someone I met there took us to a Russian style bar (complete with drab interior and bad service!) which is secretly owned by Kaurismaki.
I recommend "Lucky" (2011 film with Colin Hanks), as long as you're not a blonde female with a history of insane ex-boyfriends. I don't want to give the plot away, but let's just say I terrified one of my friends who fits that description (oops). It's a playful, slightly twisted, interesting movie. Nothing deep - just an enjoyable film.
Neon, can you explain a bit more? How come he owns it secretly? Is he a very popular director? I've never actually heard of him but I might have to check those films out
Hey Zebra. Well it goes something along the lines of Kaurismaki owning the bar next door called Corona which has since become too popular and busy. He wanted somewhere quiet to drink so opened a place next door, made it look run down and the type of place where you'd get shot or kidnapped Here are some pics, sorry that they are rather close up: ...but of course the place isn't really dodgy, as its in central Helsinki! Had a nice atmosphere, got packed full of hipsters later on, so not so quiet anymore! I did find it funny that the blonde butch bar lady served us and then disappeared for 10 minutes.
