Author Topic: TV and Movie Thread  (Read 41413 times)

Deirdre

  • Guest
Re: TV and Movie Thread
« Reply #30 on: December 28, 2014, 01:51:10 AM »
I agree with Nimphy when it comes to the third The Hobbit movie, though I'm not really  disappointed. I just from the beginning had a feeling it's not going to be a good film, didn't enjoy the previous two (far too much computer-based stuff, I'm sad they didn't continue the semi-realism from the LotR films), and as here the three things I didn't like: action scenes, romance (wut?) and drama were to intensify, I went to the cinema with low expectations. Also, I'm on a daily basis surrounded by hardcore Tolkienists, whose reactions range from absolute fury to quiet sobbing in the corner. It makes not liking the film relatively easy :P

Solovei

  • Ruler of a Derelict Airport
  • *****
    • Tumblr
  • You name it, Captain Solo will ship it.
  • Posts: 1747
Re: TV and Movie Thread
« Reply #31 on: December 28, 2014, 01:58:17 AM »
I agree with Nimphy when it comes to the third The Hobbit movie, though I'm not really  disappointed. I just from the beginning had a feeling it's not going to be a good film, didn't enjoy the previous two (far too much computer-based stuff, I'm sad they didn't continue the semi-realism from the LotR films), and as here the three things I didn't like: action scenes, romance (wut?) and drama were to intensify, I went to the cinema with low expectations. Also, I'm on a daily basis surrounded by hardcore Tolkienists, whose reactions range from absolute fury to quiet sobbing in the corner. It makes not liking the film relatively easy :P

I too had pretty low expecations going in and the movie satisfied those low expectations.

Mostly I just wanted to see Thranduil being a diva and it delivered on that front, so.
:hat:Support your fanfic authors!:betterhat:
Co-admin of the SSSS Wiki | AO3 |
:chap2:
:chap3:
:chap4:
:chap5:
:chap6:
:chap7:
:chap8:

Fluent: :canada: :russia:
Managing to stumble through: :sweden:

Eich

  • Thor
  • Ruler of a Derelict Airport
  • *
  • Retired Forum Admin
  • Posts: 1468
Re: TV and Movie Thread
« Reply #32 on: December 28, 2014, 02:30:55 AM »
I didn't even go to watch it.  I knew I wouldn't like it enough to buy it after it came out.
My family went to see it though, and they hated it too.  My brother-in-law was upset because he thought it was really inconsistent with the book but, after he got back home, he scanned through the end of the book and saw it was actually nearly the exact same as the move.  Then he started explaining the silmarillion (spelling? not even gonna try.) to us.  I haven't read any of Tolkien's work, but if I do, I'll read that one.  He described it as the "Old Testament" of Tolkien's lore and, while it sounds dry, it also sounds bizarrely entertaining.

Oh, and I've been watching loads of "Once Upon A Time" with my mom and brother this week.  That show is the most unusual... Cheesy...  Load of... But I like it.  :/  It's fun to watch the characters, more than anything.
Feel free to PM.

ruth

  • Safe-Zone Citizen
  • **
  • pining for the fjords
  • Posts: 237
Re: TV and Movie Thread
« Reply #33 on: December 28, 2014, 09:23:59 AM »
long long list of shows on my radar right now!
  • utopia
  • black mirror
  • orphan black
  • vikings
  • äkta människor (real humans)
  • wallander (sv)
  • the good wife

most of them are still coming out with episodes (other than wallander and utopia), so i'm on the edge of my seat waiting for more seasons right now.
Principal mouthnoises: :spain: :uk: :norway:

Fenris

  • Guest
Re: TV and Movie Thread
« Reply #34 on: December 28, 2014, 11:09:54 AM »
I quite liked the most recent hobbit film, although I don't think its a great one. I quite liked the action scenes, and the compact but meaningful character development shown, and it stuck very close to the book and the appendices itself (despite Tauriel, Legolas and the romance). All in all, I thought it was a pretty good flick (at least enough for me to be planning an extended hobbit-lord of the rings marathon with some friends sometime this summer).

DzigaWatt

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Just 5 more mins
  • Posts: 92
Re: TV and Movie Thread
« Reply #35 on: December 28, 2014, 01:15:23 PM »
I dunno what to say guys, I respect all your opinions, but I kinda liked how they did the mystic stuff, and it did really feel like an adventure to me. One of the better moments was the wall-diving troll in the third movie, but I mostly drooled during the dwarf battle. The psychological part was actually more present than in LOTR, I mean you have Bilbo skewing a baby spider for a ring, pardon, THE ring, and in a single moment you see an emotional roller coaster on his face finally accepting what he had done when he says "mine". But that's just my opinion, no hate please :)
can discuss the meaning of life:
like a second mother-language:
won't starve:
dATumblr

Ceceoh

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: TV and Movie Thread
« Reply #36 on: December 28, 2014, 09:36:49 PM »
Martin Freeman as Bilbo was by far the best part of all of the Hobbit films, and yes, except for the dwarves' interactions with Smaug - which was completely, mysteriously absent in the book - the writers did stick pretty much to the book and  appendices. I think it was the choice of making it three films that lead to many of the way too long battle scenes, which was never my favorite parts anyway. Plus I could have done without the very unfunny relief supplied by that weasely servant.

Deirdre

  • Guest
Re: TV and Movie Thread
« Reply #37 on: December 29, 2014, 03:55:14 PM »
I had an opportunity to re-watch the new Hobbit with my friends, and decided to give it another try. Afterwards  I asked one of my friend's opinion and the dialog went as follows:
- The epic battle was too long, and too loud.
- This movie has the battle in the title...
- It was still too loud. I couldn't sleep.
Well, I guess he didn't like it too much...

But we appreciated the acting (Freeman, Evans, Armitage) and diva-Thranduil. I also liked Lady Galadriel, very canonical. Still, drama overload was reached thanks to the romance and Legolas' mummy issues; there are things hurting me in the original Middle-Earth's chronology, too (Azog, to give a general example, or Legolas'actions after the battle).
And there were sandworms. I still don't like the movie.

Lenny

  • Ranger
  • ****
    • Tumblr
    • DeviantArt
  • Ninja.
  • Preferred pronouns: My name. They/them.
  • Posts: 898
Re: TV and Movie Thread
« Reply #38 on: December 30, 2014, 07:06:13 AM »
Urg, mine is an unpopular opinion, then. I only just saw it today, and man, I loved it. I knew it was going to be all battle, because I'm really a big fan of the books and have read them several times over, and I was really really pleasantly surprised to find they not only stuck very close to the original, but also managed to make that long long battle entertaining and suspenseful. I don't mind the extra things added and vague things expanded upon mainly because these stories are +-70 years old now, and we already have a Hobbit movie that's extremely close to what the book is like, though it's animated. They needed to be renewed, and in such a way that it would be new to the old fans as well, and in that it was very successful, both the The Hobbit trilogy and the The Lord of the Rings trilogy. And people, let alone the brilliant acting (I rewatched The Fellowship of the Ring just now and Martin Freeman's acting is so so good and matching with Ian Holm's - it really does feel like the same character) and the magnificence that is Thranduil (and man is he magnificent, I need to do some fanart of that magnificence), it's just so so cool seeing all the places and people and creatures. You know, not once did I feel like "urgh, this does NOT look like I imagined it at all". The visualization of those films is just incredible. And it is just stunning in 3D. I can't wait to get my hands on a boxed extended edition set sometime in the future.

Also, I managed to complete my "The Hobbit" cup collection. I now have all three cups from all three movies... hahaha... this one is the most magnificent, it's got Smaug and Bard and Bilbo on the cover. Oh man. That's something else that was so good. Smaug. That animation. That absolutely magnificent animation. *shivers just thinking about it* I am so envious of the people who got to work on that film. I don't suppose I'll ever get the chance to. *sigh* Unless they by some miracle are allowed to adapt the Silmarillion some time in the future. Which would be cool, by the way. That history book... I would like to see what they would do with it.
Am notified of private messages via email.

Hrollo

  • Ranger
  • ****
  • Posts: 678
Re: TV and Movie Thread
« Reply #39 on: December 31, 2014, 08:02:59 PM »
Ahem.

Rollo productions present:


The Top 20 films I discovered in 2014


So, in 2014 I have seen 101 new films. By that I don't mean films released in 2014, I mean any film that I had not seen before.

So, how about I make a top 20 of those?

But first, let's see the repartition by decade and by nationality of the movies I have seen!

20s: 7 films
30s: 12 films
40s: 11 films
50s: 20 films
60s: 22 films
70s: 12 films
80s: 7 films
90s: 2 films
2000s: 2 films
2010s: 6 films

US: 30 films
Japan: 23 films
UK: 22 films
France: 16 films
Soviet Union: 3 films
Sweden: 2 films
Denmark: 1 films
Germany: 1 films
China: 1 films
Italy: 1 films
Korea: 1 films


And now, on to the top!


#20: Doctor Zhivago (David Lean, 1965)

David Lean's epic drama doesn't fail to deliver, these 3 hours go on really fast, conveying the uncertainty of individual human existences within a quickly changing and chaotic period of history.



#19: Round Midnight (Bertrand Tavernier, 1986)

Bertrand Tavernier's fictional biopic about a jazz musician inspired by Lester Young and Bud Powell sets itself appart from other jazz biopics (like Clint Eastwood's Bird) by having real jazz musicians instead of professional actors play the different part, and only following a few months at the end of a musician's life, instead of trying to cover his whole history.

The result is a very laid back, very authentic film about jazz, which might not be very accessible for those who do not like the genre, but is a must see for those who do.



#18: The Mirror (Andrei Tarkovski, 1975)

I used to think I didn't like David Lynch's Inland Empire because its plot was absolutely impenetrable. After seeing The Mirror, I now realise an obsfuscating plot is not a problem at all —it's just that Inland Empire looks like crap as a movie, whereas The Mirror, for its obfuscating plot, is an absolutely gorgeous film that every director should see at least once (plus, the plot makes a lot more sense once you realise it's just a series of dreams and memories of a man reflecting back on his life).



#17: Assassination (Masahiro Shinoda, 1964)

A historical film set in Japan during the bakumatsu (a period of heated political conflict and near-civil war during the mid 19th century), but directed in the experimental style of Shinoda, with heavy use of shadows and an eerie soundtrack by Toru Takemitsu, this feels more like a mix of film noir and fantasy than like a historical drama.



#16: Samurai Assassin (Kihachi Okamoto, 1965)

Another historical film set during the bakumatsu (they made a lot of those in the 60s), yet in a completely different style from the previous one, with a more classic, more realistic look (paradoxically with a more fictionalised story), staring Toshiro Mifune in a powerful performance; a film about the extreme cruelty of politics and war.



#15: Pale Flower (Masahiro Shinoda, 1964)

You know what would make Woody Allen's or Federico Fellini's movies a lot better in my opinion? If instead of being about rich idle bourgeois and their cultural life, they were about yakuzas and their night life. This is this movie. This is a dark, psychological drama, but about yakuzas and gamblers, again filmed in the powerful, shadow-heavy style of Shinoda.



#14: Fanny (Marc Allégret, 1932)

This is the second movie in a trilogy of romance-comedy-drama films set in the port of Marseille and adapted from a series of plays by Marcel Pagnol. Although all three movies in the trilogy (which I have seen in its entirerity this year) are really good, I found this one was particularly just in its tone and representation of daily life; it's a film that shows how, in a time period where society had rather rigidly enforced public morals, people will neither completely abide to the rule, but will not outright rebel either, instead finding small arrangements in order to keep living more or less happy.



#13: Stagecoach (John Ford, 1939)

Here's a movie I really didn't expect to like that much. It turns out that, in spite of its clichés and dated tropes, this film remains an example of particularly well mastered storytelling, quickly and seemlessly introducing the premise and the characters, and solving satisfyingly all its plot threads in just under 100 minutes.



#12: High and Low (Akira Kurosawa, 1963)

Kurosawa's films set in contemporary Japan are less well known than his samurai films, and this is a shame, because the former include several noir gems like this intense police procedural drama about cruel choices and revenge.



#11: Ordet (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1955)

A quiet Danish drama about religion, directed in a very sober and restrained style and adapted from a play written by a lutheran priest? Yeah, I wasn't really enthusiastic either… It turns out that with extreme attention to detail, very minute pacing, very strong actor performances and overall a sense of strong perfectionism and pertinence, this movie is a delight for anyone who likes classic films.



#10: Ugetsu (Kenji Mizoguchi, 1953)

A weird tale that navigates between social drama and fantasy, directed in a very fluid, very flowing style, which avoids spectacular effects, instead relying entirely on subtle montage and staging ideas, completely different from the movies of Kurosawa.



#9: The Thin Red Line (Terrence Malick, 1998)

Too often there's this idea that mature and realistic, particularly for a war film, means gore, crude and violent. Malick opts for a completely different approch, showing the cruelty, the atrocities and the absurdities of war in a much less voyeuristic maneur, avoiding the oozes of fake blood, instead simply letting things happen. The dialogues are awesome, it's really refreshing to get a war film were the soldiers aren't just stringing cliché line over cliché line, even if this isn't strictly realistic.



#8: Dersu Uzala (Akira Kurosawa, 1975)

A film by Kurosawa directed in the former Soviet Union and produced by Mosfilms. I tend not to like much Kurosawa's latter films, when he started to direct in colors, but this one is a major exception. This is a biographical account about Russian officer and a Siberian hunter at the beginning of the 20th century. It's about friendship, survival and mutual respect, but it's played in a lot more subtle and interesting way than "those kinds of films" usually are.



#7: Arsenic and Old Lace (Frank Capra, 1944)

Not only it was hillarious from beginning to end, but the sudden and frequent direction changes made the movie very interesting —you know you're watching a comedy, but you're never quite sure what kind of comedy you're watching.



#6: The Bad Sleep Well (Akira Kurosawa, 1960)

Another of Kurosawa's contemporary noir films; this one is a rather free adaptation of Hamlet, keeping the general plot ideas but creating an original story with them with its own very dark atmosphere; the film has several very powerful scenes, and lot to say about the corruption of the elites.



#5: Children of Paradise (Marcel Carné, 1945)

A period, romantic-drama set in 19th century Paris; while the historical reconstruction is impressive for the time, and the plot is certainly not bad, although a bit complicated due to the number of main characters, what really carries this film are the delightful dialogues written by French poet Jacques Prévert. The movie is 3 hours long, but I could have easily watched 3 more hours of it just for the dialogues.



#4: A Man Escaped (Robert Bresson, 1956)

We've all seen prison-break drama films. This one, however, is a true story. Set during the occupation of France by the Nazis, this minimalistic film tells a simple but powerful story, without any attempt at romanticising or embelishing the events, but without voyeurism either, avoiding the pitfall of emotional manipulation that is so easy to fall for in these kinds of movie —which doesn't mean the movie is devoided of any emotion either, on the contrary.



#3: Harakiri (Masaki Kobayashi, 1962)

Oh boy, this movie… it starts like it's going to be a quiet drama mostly told retrospectively, a laid back story about honor and resignation, and then, progressively, subtly at first, it goes in a completely different direction… I will not say anything more for fear of spoiling it, but let's just say that if you don't like cruel and twisted stories, you should probably avoid this movie. But otherwise, you're in for quite a ride!



#2: Rashomon (Akira Kurosawa, 1950)

Here's a movie writers should definitely watch: in less than 90 minutes, it introduces a plot device, it explores every possibilities that this device offers, it even manages to subvert it, and still gives us an acceptable ending. Or how to tell the same story four times in an increasingly dark and cynical fashion, while still bringing the audience closure at the end!



#1: Army of Shadows (Jean-Pierre Melville, 1969)

If I had been told in 2013 that one of my favorite movies for 2014 would include a French film about the occupation of France by the Nazis, I would not have believed it… so of course two such films ended up in my favorites of the year.

This one is probably the most realistic film about the French Resistance that exists outthere. Although it is based on fictionalised accounts, both the director and the author of the book it was based on were former members of the Resistance, and so they knew, first hand, what they were talking about.

This is not a happy, heroic film. It's a grim, disjointed story that shows just how desperate the cause of Resistance fighters was, how little hope of success they had, and how they were pretty much terrorists in their time. The film doesn't attack the resistance, it is still sympathetic to it, but it portrays it in an unromantized manner, close to the moral complexity and ambiguity of what resistance movements actually are.

I could write tons of things on this film, it was really an excellent surprise, and I recommend it to everyone who likes classic films or French films.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2014, 08:16:31 PM by Rollo »
Fluent: :fr: :gb:
Some knowledge: :it:
Attempting to learn again: :de:
Passive familiarity: :es: :br: :ad: :ro:

Avatar by Ufoo

Piney

  • Admiral of a Sunken Ship
  • ******
    • Tumblr
    • DeviantArt
  • friendly neighborhood conifer
  • Preferred pronouns: she/her
  • Posts: 4073
Re: TV and Movie Thread
« Reply #40 on: January 01, 2015, 10:07:14 PM »
I'm going to follow Rollo's lead and put use to my "movies I've seen this year" list. :)

I saw a total of 58 movies in 2014, 44 of which I hadn't seen before - I'll present my ten favorites, in order for the most part:

1. Some Like It Hot (1959) - easily one of my favorite movies now
2. Amélie (2001)
3. Lars and the Real Girl (2007)
4. Spite Marriage (1929) - I just love Buster Keaton so much
5. Beginners (2010)
6. Alien (1979) - (can't believe I hadn't already seen it)
7. Boyhood (2014) - there was a lot of hype around it, but it actually was really good
8. The Babadook (2014) - super creepy and also sad
9. Son of Frankenstein (1939) - I'm just a sucker for old horror movies, really
10. The Fall (2006) ...because Lee Pace is pretty, why else.


Vote for me on Top Webcomics!

Twitter | Reynir blog | Native: :usa:   Rudimentary: :spain:   A few words: :iceland: | Reader since 10/21/14 | :chap5: - :chap13:

Eich

  • Thor
  • Ruler of a Derelict Airport
  • *
  • Retired Forum Admin
  • Posts: 1468
Re: TV and Movie Thread
« Reply #41 on: January 01, 2015, 10:12:00 PM »
I'm going to follow Rollo's lead and put use to my "movies I've seen this year" list. :)

I saw a total of 58 movies in 2014, 44 of which I hadn't seen before - I'll present my ten favorites, in order for the most part:

1. Some Like It Hot (1959) - easily one of my favorite movies now
2. Amélie (2001)
3. Lars and the Real Girl (2007)
4. Spite Marriage (1929) - I just love Buster Keaton so much
5. Beginners (2010)
6. Alien (1979) - (can't believe I hadn't already seen it)
7. Boyhood (2014) - there was a lot of hype around it, but it actually was really good
8. The Babadook (2014) - super creepy and also sad
9. Son of Frankenstein (1939) - I'm just a sucker for old horror movies, really
10. The Fall (2006) ...because Lee Pace is pretty, why else.
Some like it hot is fantastic.  A lot of those old Monroe movies are.
I watched Alien for the first time a couple weeks ago!  Really good. 

Aside from that, I hardly watched any movies at all.  I think the last thing I saw in theatres was... The second Hobbit movie?  "Smaug Wakes Up," or something?  I don't even bother watching most new stuff because I just don't enjoy movies much anymore.  EDIT: Oh, but I did watch "No Country For Old Men."  ...   ...   ...   So good.  The Coen Bros. are just incredible and I love them.
Feel free to PM.

Piney

  • Admiral of a Sunken Ship
  • ******
    • Tumblr
    • DeviantArt
  • friendly neighborhood conifer
  • Preferred pronouns: she/her
  • Posts: 4073
Re: TV and Movie Thread
« Reply #42 on: January 01, 2015, 10:23:06 PM »
Some like it hot is fantastic.  A lot of those old Monroe movies are.
I watched Alien for the first time a couple weeks ago!  Really good. 

Aside from that, I hardly watched any movies at all.  I think the last thing I saw in theatres was... The second Hobbit movie?  "Smaug Wakes Up," or something?  I don't even bother watching most new stuff because I just don't enjoy movies much anymore.  EDIT: Oh, but I did watch "No Country For Old Men."  ...   ...   ...   So good.  The Coen Bros. are just incredible and I love them.

I almost never watch movies in the theater because I never want to pay for something that I might not even like. Not that I'm ever the one paying for them, but it feel like a waste of time and money if the movie sucks.
Speaking of the Coen brothers, I did see "Inside Llewyn Davis" (the only Coen brothers movie I've seen) last year, which was good in a lot of respects, but I just didn't get it.


Vote for me on Top Webcomics!

Twitter | Reynir blog | Native: :usa:   Rudimentary: :spain:   A few words: :iceland: | Reader since 10/21/14 | :chap5: - :chap13:

Eich

  • Thor
  • Ruler of a Derelict Airport
  • *
  • Retired Forum Admin
  • Posts: 1468
Re: TV and Movie Thread
« Reply #43 on: January 02, 2015, 12:21:23 PM »
I almost never watch movies in the theater because I never want to pay for something that I might not even like. Not that I'm ever the one paying for them, but it feel like a waste of time and money if the movie sucks.
Speaking of the Coen brothers, I did see "Inside Llewyn Davis" (the only Coen brothers movie I've seen) last year, which was good in a lot of respects, but I just didn't get it.
Exactly.  I'm about to go see "The Imitation Game," right now, actually.
I haven't seen that one.  They have a weird sense of humor, though.  Watch No Country for Old Men, Oh Brother Where Art Thou, or Raising Arizona.  Those are three I like the most that they bone.

Just watched Mulan with my brother.  That movie is awesome, haha. :D
Feel free to PM.

Hrollo

  • Ranger
  • ****
  • Posts: 678
Re: TV and Movie Thread
« Reply #44 on: January 02, 2015, 01:17:38 PM »
Oooooh, "Alien", yeah, SSSS fans should definitely see that one if they haven't yet :p
Fluent: :fr: :gb:
Some knowledge: :it:
Attempting to learn again: :de:
Passive familiarity: :es: :br: :ad: :ro:

Avatar by Ufoo