End Of Watch- Stupidly over hyped, i've no idea how these films get so much hype, its seems now that films are either amazing or awful with no middle ground, film was grand for what it was with very good performances.
End of Watch has had word of mouth positivity. I don't know what you define 'hype' as, but not getting a US release until it did well in other territories hardly makes for an over-hyped film.
Every review I read, any mention of it on a forum were saying it was one of the best films of the year. That for me counts as hype.
It would be Hype if it wasn't true but its the best film i have seen this year and i must have watched 150 +.
i walked out of a film for the first time in years the other night... im guessing with about 30mins left too ... DO NOT GO SEE "THIS IS FORTY" = QUITE POSSIBLY THE MOST BORING COMEDY I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE !!!
the dark knight was only average. there is a tredning video on youtube pointing out all the mistakes inside that movie and it really is quite remarkable...
my next picture = Django unchained. going to see it sunday night .... i heard its A+, and top quality
Massively jealous, Django unchained isn't released until January 18th over here.
Also do not watch in 48 fps.. See link, worst mistake I ever made, quite possibly the worst cinema experience of my entire life except perhaps throw momma from the train.. For different reasons, tho...
Also do not watch in 48 fps.. See link, worst mistake I ever made, quite possibly the worst cinema experience of my entire life except perhaps throw momma from the train.. For different reasons, tho...
I loved the 48 frames, I went in expecting to hate it from all the criticism it's received. Thought it made the 3d a lot better and easier to watch. Also thought some of the helicopter shots in 3d were incredible. Felt like I was there. 3d in 24 frames makes it look too unnatural for me.
interesting most of the criticism is that it looks too much like a video game... I'm interested to know why that's a criticism. For me it adds to the fantasy element.
Saw The Hobbit last night and thought it was pretty good. The overall story is pretty faithful to the book but lots of the details have been changed, which in most cases was needed. For example, in the book the dwarves were mostly harmless, frequently unarmed and often captured due to bumbling or stupidity. In the film they are far more capable and dangerous. The Orcs and Goblins play a far more vital role in the film than in the book but I suspect this was needed to add a bit more action and to tie it into the LotR films a bit more.
They've also added in more details for other events that Tolkien mentioned only in passing in the book but expanded upon in notes and other material. Radagast the Brown (played by Sylvester McCoy) is only mentioned in the book but plays a significant role in the film and this looks to be setting it up for more in the second film, with the White Council taking on The Necromancer of Dol Guldur, again something mentioned only as background in the book.
Sorry if this is a bit off-thread, but: I have only sight in one eye (since I was 5 years old) and 3-D means nothing to me. I have only ever seen the real world in 2-D. So 3-D films are a waste of money I think for me. I was so glad when the Magic Eye pictures crazy died off - couldn't see anything. When people kept on trying to make me 'see' the picture, I always told them "Ah yes, it's a dolphin". Anyway, thanks for listening!
Sorry if this is a bit off-thread, but: I have only sight in one eye (since I was 5 years old) and 3-D means nothing to me. I have only ever seen the real world in 2-D. So 3-D films are a waste of money I think for me. I was so glad when the Magic Eye pictures crazy died off - couldn't see anything. When people kept on trying to make me 'see' the picture, I always told them "Ah yes, it's a dolphin". Anyway, thanks for listening!
Sorry if this is a bit off-thread, but: I have only sight in one eye (since I was 5 years old) and 3-D means nothing to me. I have only ever seen the real world in 2-D. So 3-D films are a waste of money I think for me. I was so glad when the Magic Eye pictures crazy died off - couldn't see anything. When people kept on trying to make me 'see' the picture, I always told them "Ah yes, it's a dolphin". Anyway, thanks for listening!
You're not missing very much.
I agree. I wear glasses and having to wear 3d glasses over them makes the viewing experience very awkward plus I don't actually think that 3D adds a great deal to most movies. I usually try to watch in 2D whenever possible.
Watched The Impossible last night . It's a film that constantly tries to pull at your heart string to the extent it gets a little boring . Not as much action as you might expect .Not bad though . 8 out of 10
Watched The Impossible last night . It's a film that constantly tries to pull at your heart string to the extent it gets a little boring . Not as much action as you might expect .Not bad though . 8 out of 10
Not really one for too much sob story. (I dont mean that disrespectfully)
The Impossible is a hugely impressive piece of work. Some really harrowing moments, with some pretty special performances.
Texas Chainsaw 3D is awful. At one point you are asked to side with Leatherface.
As for The Hobbit - watched it in 3D digital IMAX which doesn't need the 48FPS as the detail is there anyway (save for the motion blur). Nowhere near as good as the Waterloo IMAX, but it looked pretty fantastic all the same. My issue with 3D is, when you remember bits from the film, you remember them in 2D. It's hard to even remember if it was IN 3D.
I enjoyed The Impossible more than I thought I would do, but then again it is difficult to say I "enjoyed" it given the content matter.
Not sure whether if it's because it was based on a true story, or because it was about an event that I remember and subsequently been to areas affected, but it seemed to have far more of the "imagine if that was me" factor than other films that I've seen based on natural disasters.
Lincoln will be my next viewing. Few do it as well as Spielberg and few act it as well as Day-Lewis
Day Lewis is fantastic as Lincon but the film will not be everyone's cup of tea. If you like political films you will like this a lot. I did .
Thanks for the tip Beds. I like to be 'educated' as well as entertained by a good movie. I have been ploughing thru John Keegan's 'The American Civl War' for the past few weeks (still to finish it). The politics were far more complex than just emancipation of the slaves. But that is a subject for a different thread. Cheers
This year's oscar nominations. Who do you think will win what? I havent even seen Lincoln yet but i'm sure Day Lewis will get it, he's probably my favourite actor possibly ever.
Disappointed Tarantino didnt get nominated for best director, as i'm a huge fan of his. Its disappointing the academy very rarely rewards creativity. But then its always been like that.
Lincoln will be my next viewing. Few do it as well as Spielberg and few act it as well as Day-Lewis
Day Lewis is fantastic as Lincon but the film will not be everyone's cup of tea. If you like political films you will like this a lot. I did .
Thanks for the tip Beds. I like to be 'educated' as well as entertained by a good movie. I have been ploughing thru John Keegan's 'The Americal Civl War' for the past few weeks (still to finish it). The politics were far more complex than just emancipation of the slaves. But that is a subject for a different thread. Cheers
You might like Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns on which I think the film was partly based. Superb group biog of Lincoln and three of his most powerful cabinet members.
Looking like 2013 will be a great year for film. Will try to catch the Lincoln film, the FDR one, Django and the Bin Laden one.
Comments
Also do not watch in 48 fps.. See link, worst mistake I ever made, quite possibly the worst cinema experience of my entire life except perhaps throw momma from the train.. For different reasons, tho...
http://www.vulture.com/m/2012/12/critics-on-the-hobbits-high-frame-rate.html
Hoping to see Django unchained later.
Anyone know any theatres in central/west that project film, rather than project digitally (like most theatres nowadays)
They've also added in more details for other events that Tolkien mentioned only in passing in the book but expanded upon in notes and other material. Radagast the Brown (played by Sylvester McCoy) is only mentioned in the book but plays a significant role in the film and this looks to be setting it up for more in the second film, with the White Council taking on The Necromancer of Dol Guldur, again something mentioned only as background in the book.
Overall very good
;-)
Think ill wait till DVD. Cheers.
Texas Chainsaw 3D is awful. At one point you are asked to side with Leatherface.
As for The Hobbit - watched it in 3D digital IMAX which doesn't need the 48FPS as the detail is there anyway (save for the motion blur). Nowhere near as good as the Waterloo IMAX, but it looked pretty fantastic all the same. My issue with 3D is, when you remember bits from the film, you remember them in 2D. It's hard to even remember if it was IN 3D.
Not sure whether if it's because it was based on a true story, or because it was about an event that I remember and subsequently been to areas affected, but it seemed to have far more of the "imagine if that was me" factor than other films that I've seen based on natural disasters.
This year's oscar nominations. Who do you think will win what? I havent even seen Lincoln yet but i'm sure Day Lewis will get it, he's probably my favourite actor possibly ever.
Disappointed Tarantino didnt get nominated for best director, as i'm a huge fan of his. Its disappointing the academy very rarely rewards creativity. But then its always been like that.
Looking like 2013 will be a great year for film. Will try to catch the Lincoln film, the FDR one, Django and the Bin Laden one.