I don't think I've read the books (I honestly don't remember) but the films themselves are alright, decent enough. I also have a massive crush on Jennifer Lawrence though, so I'm not exactly objective either.
Somehow I'm familiar with that name even though I didn't see the movie. Stardust is a movie that all revolves around the beauty of the protagonist, but unlike that movie I still wouldn't feel compelled to watch the Hunger Games to see a female star (I'm not saying movies should be watched or made for that purpose). It's not difficult to find similarities between movies, as Liv Tyler has an enticing part in LOTR, like you say Jennifer Lawrence has in Hunger Games , but it's one bridge too far to say the movies are related. Just like it is when people say Harry Potter and Frodo Baggins were in the same movie, but somehow I find people make that assumption. Good to know it's a dystopian story, I can't think of a more favorable genre at this moment! Such variety! All in all it's kind of time consuming to've read all the books of everyting and watched all the movies of them. Fun, but yeah. Still I don't know anyone who has done that, and I still believe in the gap between HG, BB, etc, vs LOTR, HP. What's inside he gap is even funnier: 300 and sequel, Clash of the Titans. Those are just fantasy but something inside me warns me to not start to find a way to bring fantasy and science fiction in harmony. Oh wait, that would be steam punk. Luckily that's already covered, because I'm not waiting for a wand wielding Jedi.
Dude, you do realize you've essentially only been mentioning blockbuster films. Film critics would be laughing at you right now.
Is there sand stuck in your sexual reproduction organs, or are you circumcised for some reason or another? Don't be sly and actually say something. It's a pretty fucking worthless comment to say something like that mate
On the subject of critics, I'm not sure I put much stock in them. Steven Erikson did an interesting fantasy novella that's sort of a critique of critics. It's pretty amusing.
The quality difference between most blockbusters and a decent portion of critically acclaimed films is usually pretty obvious.
Quality has to take into consideration the goal of the film, I think. If you're trying to make a popular, entertaining, and light movie, The Avengers is of higher quality than something like Eraserhead or Pi. When critics get involved the result often hinges, at best, on the critic's subjective view of what is worthy of attempting with film, and at worst a pretentious exercise in what the critic thinks film critics should think is worth attempting
For me, it comes down to what works the brain and what doesn't. If it just makes your eyes glaze over, well, you and I both live in sunny Ca, there's other things we can do.
They wouldn't laugh at me. They'd be in the know of how mainstream blockbusters are almost impossible to critique, so there'd be no point in paying too much attention to that category or movies, critiquewise. Nor is it helpful to them to start paying attention to people who comment on "mainstream blockbusters". If you try to speak for a third party, do it right, and do it when it is relevant.
This and this are related to each other, how? This Was in response to this comment I made, how? You can be confused all you want, but you should read before you comment anything and think about what you comment before you comment. I'm in slight suspicion that you're trolling me right now and I hope I'm wrong about that.
:chill: Reminder to all of you: if you feel like you're being treated wrongly, trolled, or insulted, please report the post and let the mods handle it. Let's keep the threads on topic. Thank you.
I think critics are worth listening to. You just have to be selective on which critics you take seriously. Some opinions, I'm by now convinced, are just not worth the bother of paying attention to. That is especially true of critics. Some hack working for The News of the Day or whatever who gives 'Best film of the year' to some third rate garbage is not worth listening to, and I doubt he takes his own opinion very seriously anyway, all he is looking for is a pay check and a few words published. I've been there myself, I've been one of those hack journalists who is just wanting to get something rather than something good out there. Someone like Roger Ebert, though, I have much more time for - he always seemed to be a very intelligent, very well educated, very thoughtful person. He's a critic to listen to, not Joe Nobody who hasn't a clue what he's talking about.
Every now and then I run across a film critic who reflects my opinion of almost every movie he/she reviews. Right now, that's Joe Morgenstern from the Wall Street Journal. (I added the /she, but I can't think of a female critic.)
Just saw "Begin Again" the other night, which is more or less "Once" with the genders reversed. I enjoyed it immensely despite the recycled concept and despite the fact that Keira Knightly often irritates me. Films that give insight into the creative process, particularly in music, interest me if they're done well. Some of my favorites (in no particular order): Amadeus - I know, I know; lots of fluff. But the scene near the end, with Salieri trying to drive Mozart to his destruction but at the same time trying to understand his creative genius - gripping! The Commitments - one of the rare cases where the film was miles better than the book. Anyone who has been in a band and watched it fall apart has to love this film. Walk the Line - forget the Johnny and June schmaltz, most of which is fiction, anyway. What I love is the scene where he auditions for Sam Phillips. The Boys and Girl from County Clare - Although I could have done without the puking scenes. Did we really need two? Cadillac Records - although technically less about the creative process and more about the selling. Would have been better with less fictionalized material. Once - I love the fact that what could have happened, didn't. The Competition - one does need to be able to suspend disbelief in the extreme on several accounts. Best line is James B. Sikking's - "A little effort, and we didn't blow anyone's life to hell and gone." 33 Variations - a music professor with ALS tries to get to the heart of what Beethoven might have been up to when he created 33 variations on an obscure piece. The astute reader will note that three of the titles are set in Ireland, and two of those include Andrea Corr in the cast. I can't explain that. And, in the interest of full disclosure, "33 Variations" is not a film at all (although it would probably work well as a film if done properly). It is a marvelous play by Moises Kaufman which had a limited run on Broadway, in which Jane Fonda played the music professor and did so brilliantly.
@EdFromNY, The Commitments is one of the funniest films I've ever seen. I love the Irish sense of humour.
I saw The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies tonight. Fucking shit. Everything is melodramatic horseshit, and every single minor moment tries to be epic with a score that is too in your face. It has too much CGI, everyone is speaking way too slow and serious all the time, there are too many idiotic moments, and the dialogue is horrendous. Sometimes it even makes fun of itself, as if the cast are just lads in costumes having fun. There is literally a character that says 'What about the children? Won't somebody think of the children!?' I shit you not. Also, it was in 4k, so it looked like a stage production with flimsy sets and not a movie in another place. Too real. Unbelievably bad. Luckily I recently saw one of the best films of the year, which was The Drop. That was surprisingly fantastic. Nightcrawler was alright, too. But i used to be a stringer so understood that side of things better than most.
The Hobbit is one of my childhood favourite books, and as such I've felt a weird sort of obligation to enjoy them, and I even sort of do but there is something that has been bothering me about them from the start. And I think this is exactly it. The set of the Necromancer's tower in the films looks so completely awful I'm bored whenever there is a scene on it. It looks (you are absolutely right) like someone filmed a stage production of it and added bits in to make it look like a movie. That bit when they started going down the Elf King's stream in the second film, fighting the orks, that felt to me like someone filmed a LARP event and then threw a load of bad jokes and CGI into it. Also, why does Laketown suddenly get this revolutionary, democracy side story - in the book the Lord of Laketown was selfish and a bit dim, but he wasn't what Stephen Fry portrays him to be. The best sets are the ones that survive from the original films, and those films actually felt like they were happening in a real place where as The Hobbit doesn't. If I had my way it would just be a single, 3 hour film made for children that sticks only to what was actually in the book. The Hobbit was not some grand adventure epic to rival Lord of the Rings, it was a children's book!
Not really. Fellowship of the Ring is fantastic and the way it should be. Willow is also a great example of how to do fantasy, not to mention The Neverending Story or Conan. BOTFA was horseshit no matter how you scoop it.
Me too. I really hope someone does it properly. There were good moments in the first two films of The Hobbit, but only moments, yet there was literally nothing redeeming in the last film. Nothing I liked at all. Nothing. The last time I experienced hating everything in a film was during Van Helsing. I loved the book. I've got my copy sitting right next to me. It's one of the few books I ever actually enjoyed.
