What movie did you see today?

[wiggin]

I can't believe they cast someone as old as Asa Butterfield to play me.

[Timbuk2]

Contagion

Masertfully directed by Steven Soderburgh. Starring Laurence Fishuburne, Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Jude Law, Elliot Gould, Gwyneth Paltrow.

Grown up film, quite a bit more cerebral than the likes of Outbreak. Convincing and engaging. A definite must-see.

8/10.

[wiggin]

Finally saw Skyfall. It was okay, but I don't really get where all the critics thought it was nearly the best Bond film ever. I had a good time, but a few beefs:

Spoiler:

1. Pretty big plot holes. No real justification is given for the villain needing to be captured by MI6. He needs it in order to escape through the underground so that he might then take a car through the streets of London to go kill M? Why not just do the same basic plan (blow up a train to distract security, and in the confusion kill M) without the whole MI6 capture risk thing? Oh, I get he was going for a bit of the dramatic flair, but the whole thing just doesn't hang together very well from a logic perspective.

2. The villain's plan wasn't very diabolical. That's one of the hallmarks of Bond films I love - the villain always is going for world domination of one sort or another - satellite-launched EMPs, all the gold in Fort Knox, bajillions of dollars in terrorist financing, whatever. The villain here wanted... to kill M. Whoop de doo. Oh, he carried out some other mischief along the way, but I just wasn't as worried about the possibility of his success (which, indeed, he did achieve). I wasn't invested. It would have been a simple matter to make his plan broader in scope, but still centered on his obsession with M: an all-out cyberattack on MI6 or London or the UK. I was half-expecting him to use the underground system to poison thousands (millions?) with hydrogen cyanide as poetic revenge. But, no. All he wants to do is kill his old boss.

3. The wife agrees with Dread. Why make M's death be so seemingly pointless? Yes, they wanted to write Judi Dench out, but there were better and more dramatic ways to do it. I'm not as concerned with this point, but I certainly see the critique.

4. Plotting was pretty transparent - I saw the broad shape of the film's resolution pretty early on - it was clear as soon as we met Mallory that he'd be the new M, and it just took until we meet the villain to figure out it was because the old M was going to be killed/almost killed by the villain. I spent most of the movie waiting for the inevitable to occur rather than enjoying the suspense.

5. Just how stupid do we think MI6 is, plugging a known arch-criminal hacker supergenius' computer into the MI6 computer system?

6. Disappointed in the quality of the girls in the film. I mean, Harris was cute enough but I didn't really get the chemistry. And the French girl frankly was kinda meh.

I will grant that the pacing had its points, and the early chase scene was one of my favorites for a Bond film. Also enjoyed that they got into Bond's character/history a bit more.

Also, Hazir, the famous bridge where the train chase scene ends? The Varda Viaduct, in southern Turkey roughly a bajillion miles from Istanbul. So add that to your list of geographical gripes.

[Aimless]

So hobbit was much better than lotr

[Timbuk2]

Premiered last night, no? How'd you get to see it?

Thought premieres were celebrity-invite-type events ...

[evenstar]

I saw the Hobbit last night, as well. Decided to see it in HFR 3D for my first viewing. This was the first time I could sit through a 3D movie without getting a migraine. I guess those extra frames per second really do ease the strain on the eyes. It was definitely a unique experience. The picture seemed so clear and realistic that at times it seemed almost fake, if that makes any sense. It takes some getting used to, but if you go into it without expectations, I think you'll be surprised.

As for the story, it's the Hobbit - Peter Jackson loves Middle Earth, so you know he's not going to screw it up. Some of the added scenes seemed a little superfluous, but I did not care. I sat there for almost three hours eating it up. I probably would have sat there for twice that time and still not had enough! The 'Riddles in the Dark' scene was especially good. They need to create a special category in the Oscars to recognize Andy Serkis' contribution to these movies. He was brilliant! Also, Martin Freeman was perfect as Bilbo. In fact, all the casting was spot on in my opinion.

[Ominous Gamer]

Premiered last night, no? How'd you get to see it?

Thought premieres were celebrity-invite-type events ...

Its been showing at invite screenings (promo events where media channels hand out 4 tickets for every seat), since Monday. The world premiere was last month.
I'll be seeing it tomorrow night, I wanted to see it tonight at the official US midnight launch, but Brandy reminded me I have 3 kids I have to plan 3 hour movies around

[Timbuk2]

I saw the Hobbit last night, as well. Decided to see it in HFR 3D for my first viewing. This was the first time I could sit through a 3D movie without getting a migraine. I guess those extra frames per second really do ease the strain on the eyes. It was definitely a unique experience. The picture seemed so clear and realistic that at times it seemed almost fake, if that makes any sense. It takes some getting used to, but if you go into it without expectations, I think you'll be surprised.

Remarks of the 48 fps over 24fps that Jackson used for this are very similar to yours; it seems 'fake', somehow. 24fps, the norm, just seems grittier and more real.

Some expert also remarked that it is new, it's not what we're used to, but that's all it will take, us just to get used to it. Then it will be the norm, and we'll be better off for it; crisper, cleaner visuals.

As for the story, it's the Hobbit - Peter Jackson loves Middle Earth, so you know he's not going to screw it up. Some of the added scenes seemed a little superfluous, but I did not care. I sat there for almost three hours eating it up. I probably would have sat there for twice that time and still not had enough! The 'Riddles in the Dark' scene was especially good. They need to create a special category in the Oscars to recognize Andy Serkis' contribution to these movies. He was brilliant! Also, Martin Freeman was perfect as Bilbo. In fact, all the casting was spot on in my opinion.

Thanks for the comments.

Jackson had his heart set on Freeman as Bilbo. It almost never happened, Freeman was contracted into a BBC production he couldn't get out of when filming was due to take place on the Hobbit. Jackson made the decision to delay filiming by many months just to get Freeman ...

Its been showing at invite screenings (promo events where media channels hand out 4 tickets for every seat), since Monday. The world premiere was last month.
I'll be seeing it tomorrow night, I wanted to see it tonight at the official US midnight launch, but Brandy reminded me I have 3 kids I have to plan 3 hour movies around

Hmmm ...

My other half has no interest in it whatsoever. I am trying to think of bribes and methods of gentle coercion. I would (and may have to) go and see it by myself, but, as with anything, the experience is greater shared.

[evenstar]

My other half has no interest in it whatsoever. I am trying to think of bribes and methods of gentle coercion. I would (and may have to) go and see it by myself, but, as with anything, the experience is greater shared.

Yeah, my honey doesn't particularly care for Tolkien, especially The Hobbit - he thinks it's too childish. However, he said that since I had been waiting for this movie for so long, he wanted to be there to experience it with me. In the end, he loved it, too.

[Ominous Gamer]

Just got home from The Hobbit

Peter Jackson sure took his fair share of creative liberties with the story and especially with the characters. Disappointing he took out so much of the elves. Its no where near the same story that Tolkien wrote. BUT it is a very good movie, a little long in the beginning but well worth the 3 hours.

I swear he fucked up the eagles at the end just to troll for all the "why didn't the eagles do all the work" comments that LoTR is victim to.

[Veldan Rath]

I didn't find the eagle scene fucked up. The eagles are powerful in a fight, but an organized disciplined force would make short work of them...archers. They are good for the sneaky attacks.

Yeah we enjoyed the movie too...and all the younger people that we in the move with us...I was astonished. I think we were the oldest couple there. 70-80% of the audience was 19-22 yr, (good looking)! old men. (otherwise known as a chicken farm).

[Ominous Gamer]

I didn't find the eagle scene fucked up. The eagles are powerful in a fight, but an organized disciplined force would make short work of them...archers. They are good for the sneaky attacks.

Except that the movie doesn't allow the eagles to talk, so viewers don't know why the eagles wont just fly to the mountain. In fact, thanks to how horribly Jackson spoiled the trilogy in the first 5-10 minutes, the viewers don't know that there are any human settlements between carrock and the lonely mountain.

On a personal level, I'm disappointed Jackson didn't at least attempt to recreate Tolkien's famous bilbo waking with the sun in his eyes illustration. That scene carried a lot of weight in the book. But Bilbo's character is being developed in a completely different way than how Tolkien went about it.

As for the ages of the viewers, we noticed that too, and I think that was well expected. There was like 3 different video game previews before our movie, something I've never noticed before.

[Khendraja'aro]

"Bilbo"

[Ominous Gamer]

damn left hand, a tad to quick there.

[Crowheart]

Funniest part of the movie, was when Gandalf "showed up" in Goblin Town, some little boy in the front of the theater yelled, "Gandalf!" in surprise and delight..hehe.

One of the projects I run at work is building those 48 frame per/sec boards for Dolby, so it's going to be cool to actually see the results of something we build here.
I saw it on the regular screen while my wife was working...will wait for her for the big screen...couldn't wait.

[wiggin]

Finally got around to seeing Ajami, an Oscar nomination for best foreign film in 2009 or thereabouts. Hmm. It reminded me a lot of Crash set in Arabic and Hebrew. I think it did a decent job of portraying the complexities of the identities and loyalties of the characters involved, and setting up the film as more than just another 'Arab vs. Jew' story. It definitely was well done, especially for such a shoestring budget. The characters were quite believable and relatable. Something most viewers will miss is the delicate interplay of language used in the film - switching between Arabic and Hebrew and different dialects/slang thereof. It was extremely carefully written from that perspective, and very believable. Kudos to the writers for pulling that off; language is such an integral part of identity and culture in the region that it was crucial to nail that in such a story.

But. And this is a bit but. I didn't feel like the plot was realistic. It was full of 'just so' coincidences that drew the disparate storylines together. Furthermore, it made Jaffa look like a den of iniquity, where you can barely go two strides without running into a murder or drug dealer (the movie could probably have been called 'Murders in Jaffa'). There's no question that Ajami is a troubled neighborhood in real life, but it's nothing like that. I also found the 'villain' of the film, if there was one, to have motivations that were far from clear.

Lastly, I want to repeat my comments on the nonlinear storytelling from earlier in this thread. It is now an abused medium, and I don't know if this really added much to it. The reveal at the end was certainly interesting, and a nice way to weave everything together, but I think the story would have been plenty compelling without such gimmickry. Still, I'd recommend it, especially for people who can understand Hebrew and/or Arabic.

[Aimless]

Saw Cloud Atlas tonight

[Timbuk2]

Anyone been to see Life of Pi ?

Hear good things. Also hear from the same people that where the book is impenetrable, the movie isn't.

[Ominous Gamer]

Rise of the Guardians.

Visually very well done. Its a kids movie so the story is predictable, even if the characters are not. dual wielding santa anyone?

Its good, but not $51 good. Which is how much it cost to take the family to a regular 2D showing. Fucking theaters. Hopefully it comes out on DVD with the regular delay, instead of holding that off till next season.

[Veldan Rath]

Do I HAVE to go over the it's not the theaters but the distributors of the film that make it cost so much again?

[Ominous Gamer]

I agree that it wouldn't be good old American capitalism if every point of transfer wasn't being gouged. While distributors are partial to blame, theaters aren't exactly innocent, especially with movies that are exiting the circuit. I can watch first run movies at my local outdated theater for half the price of an AMC kids ticket. Maybe I'd have more sympathy for the theaters if their concession prices didn't make carny menus look like McDonald value options. I have no doubt in my mind that theaters would have attempted a new premium for HFR if Warner Bros hadn't come out publicly to say they wouldn't be asking for increased prices.

Rise of the Guardians cost as much yesterday as it did the day it came out, in Nov. That's not cool.

[Veldan Rath]

And if there were massive price drops 1 1/2 months later then less people would go at the beginning. They would wait.

And again, the prices for the concessions is because that is where they make their money. Not the box office. Remember 90 to 95 of the grosses for the first, second, and sometimes even longer weeks go to the distributors (Disney, Sony, WB, etc). It goes down as weeks go by, but its not all that great, cause they get less attendance per show as the weeks go by.

[Ominous Gamer]

And if there were massive price drops 1 1/2 months later then less people would go at the beginning. They would wait.

Steam gave an interview a few months back talking about how this didn't appear to be true for their medium. I wonder why movies would behave differently.

[GGT]

We saw Django. It was classic Terrantino, and I really enjoyed it (despite the blood-letting that often seemed gratuitous). There was one segment in the film that seemed to drag on, without background music or interesting dialogue, or anything that seemed "important" to the overall movie.....that was a kinda cruel way to lull the audience into apathy or antipathy, and then BAM!

It did a good job of being a love story as well as emancipation, in the midst of hell-fire, horrible atrocities, and cultural confusion. Hard to miss the similarities with Inglourious Bastards. He even cast the same "German" dude.

[GGT]

Saw The Hobbit with my eldest son last night. I yawned a few times, and resisted the temptation to take a Lobby Break more than once. The movie was way too long for my tastes.

I also laughed (out loud) a few times when the auditorium-at-large didn't consider the dialogue, scenery, or characters vaguely ironic, humorous, or outrageously sardonic.

I got kinda tired of the wizard Gandolf yelling either "Run!" or "Fight!" in response to every goblin, troll, orc, or huge hairy wolf. But I wanted to know more about the "other" wizard who watched over the forests and animals, wore a trail of bird poop down his face, saved a hedgehog from dying, and drove a sled of super fast rabbits to distract wolves...but then disappeared.

No, I never read the Tolkein books. But the movies seemed to be made like Star Wars trilogies, confusing movie watchers in timeline and character development.

ps I loved the beginning, though. I could watch a two hour movie of just Hobbits, their homes, and the Shire.

[Aimless]

I also laughed (out loud) a few times when the auditorium-at-large didn't consider the dialogue, scenery, or characters vaguely ironic, humorous, or outrageously sardonic.

[wiggin]

Recently saw Love, an indie film in the same vein as Solaris and Moon. Not bad, not great. A bit too vague for my tastes, but it was done decently.

Also saw October Sky; my high school math teacher recommended I see it oh, about 12 years ago, and I finally decided to take her advice. A fairly typical feel-good Hollywood story, but I think it was well done, so I'll forgive it the predictable nature of its plot. I think it did a good job of capturing the 'Sputnik moment' - obviously way before my time, but I guess I never really appreciated just how dramatic and exciting a time it must have seemed. I would imagine that the coal industry wasn't a big fan of the film, though. I also - as usual - found the film's fawning regard for Wernher von Braun to be misplaced. Historically accurate, perhaps, but this is a Hollywood film - who ever cared about accuracy?

[Lewkowski]

Saw The Hobbit with my eldest son last night. I yawned a few times, and resisted the temptation to take a Lobby Break more than once. The movie was way too long for my tastes.

I also laughed (out loud) a few times when the auditorium-at-large didn't consider the dialogue, scenery, or characters vaguely ironic, humorous, or outrageously sardonic.

I got kinda tired of the wizard Gandolf yelling either "Run!" or "Fight!" in response to every goblin, troll, orc, or huge hairy wolf. But I wanted to know more about the "other" wizard who watched over the forests and animals, wore a trail of bird poop down his face, saved a hedgehog from dying, and drove a sled of super fast rabbits to distract wolves...but then disappeared.

No, I never read the Tolkein books. But the movies seemed to be made like Star Wars trilogies, confusing movie watchers in timeline and character development.

ps I loved the beginning, though. I could watch a two hour movie of just Hobbits, their homes, and the Shire.

I get that taste is subjective but.... what is wrong with you?

[GGT]

I get that taste is subjective but.... what is wrong with you?

There's nothing "wrong" with me. I only commented after watching the movie.

What is wrong with you that you'd diss Les Miserables, before viewing it? What is wrong with you that you think movies are all about laughter, explosions...or laughing at explosions?

[Lewkowski]

There's nothing "wrong" with me. I only commented after watching the movie.

What is wrong with you that you'd diss Les Miserables, before viewing it? What is wrong with you that you think movies are all about laughter, explosions...or laughing at explosions?

I've seen an older version of Les Miserables. And the Hobbit was amazing, it took a lot of pains to actually explain a ton of stuff - I really don't get how you found it confusing.