This is not nearly obscure enough for this crowd, but I finally saw Hobbit II.
At first I was a bit annoyed by the liberties the movie took with the book, but, in hind sight, they actually closed some plot holes in the book — e.g., why a burglar, how did they hope to divide up so much treasure 14 ways, why Gandalf cared about this quest to begin with, etc.
The addition of a elf/dwarf/elf love triangle annoyed me, even though E. Lilly is pretty hot as an elf.
Insidious 2.
Not bad, I would not make a special effort to watch it. But I do like these types of movies.
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
This is not nearly obscure enough for this crowd, but I finally saw Hobbit II.
At first I was a bit annoyed by the liberties the movie took with the book, but, in hind sight, they actually closed some plot holes in the book — e.g., why a burglar, how did they hope to divide up so much treasure 14 ways, why Gandalf cared about this quest to begin with, etc.
The addition of a elf/dwarf/elf love triangle annoyed me, even though E. Lilly is pretty hot as an elf.[/quote]
I agree with this. I also thought they over-used CGI.
Having said that I thought they really nailed the wood elves and I like what they did with Legolas (though I was dubious when I first heard he’d be in it). He came across as more flawed/arrogant and IMO more of a badass than he was in LOTR, in which I thought he was a bit of a perfect pretty-boy.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Insidious 2.
Not bad, I would not make a special effort to watch it. But I do like these types of movies. [/quote]
Better or worse than the the first one?
Have you seen the new Paranormal Activity (figured I would ask since you like those types of movies)?
[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Insidious 2.
Not bad, I would not make a special effort to watch it. But I do like these types of movies. [/quote]
Better or worse than the the first one?
Have you seen the new Paranormal Activity (figured I would ask since you like those types of movies)?[/quote]
For what it’s worth, as you weren’t addressing me, I hated the first Insidious but really enjoyed the 2nd.
It’s still a trashy movie but the scares were a bit better plus there was some mystery in the plot to keep it moving.
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Insidious 2.
Not bad, I would not make a special effort to watch it. But I do like these types of movies. [/quote]
Better or worse than the the first one?
Have you seen the new Paranormal Activity (figured I would ask since you like those types of movies)?[/quote]
For what it’s worth, as you weren’t addressing me, I hated the first Insidious but really enjoyed the 2nd.
It’s still a trashy movie but the scares were a bit better plus there was some mystery in the plot to keep it moving.[/quote]
That is why I wanted to know. I hated the first one but I love horror/scary movies so I was wondering if they made it any better.
[quote]furo wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
This is not nearly obscure enough for this crowd, but I finally saw Hobbit II.
At first I was a bit annoyed by the liberties the movie took with the book, but, in hind sight, they actually closed some plot holes in the book — e.g., why a burglar, how did they hope to divide up so much treasure 14 ways, why Gandalf cared about this quest to begin with, etc.
The addition of a elf/dwarf/elf love triangle annoyed me, even though E. Lilly is pretty hot as an elf.[/quote]
I agree with this. I also thought they over-used CGI.
Having said that I thought they really nailed the wood elves and I like what they did with Legolas (though I was dubious when I first heard he’d be in it). He came across as more flawed/arrogant and IMO more of a badass than he was in LOTR, in which I thought he was a bit of a perfect pretty-boy.[/quote]
I still think that his role was over-expanded and took the focus off characters who were actually in the book - particularly Bard, who is really the Aragorn of this story. Nearly every time orcs appeared to threaten the company Legolas would leap in to save the day, bow a blazin’… Maybe it’s just that I’ve never thought of Bloom as a particulary dynamic actor, but he played such an integral part in saving dwarf ass that it undermined their abilities. Similar situation to 47 Ronin where an additional character makes the original characters seem unable to complete a quest without massive help from a figure who was never part of the original story.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]furo wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
This is not nearly obscure enough for this crowd, but I finally saw Hobbit II.
At first I was a bit annoyed by the liberties the movie took with the book, but, in hind sight, they actually closed some plot holes in the book — e.g., why a burglar, how did they hope to divide up so much treasure 14 ways, why Gandalf cared about this quest to begin with, etc.
The addition of a elf/dwarf/elf love triangle annoyed me, even though E. Lilly is pretty hot as an elf.[/quote]
I agree with this. I also thought they over-used CGI.
Having said that I thought they really nailed the wood elves and I like what they did with Legolas (though I was dubious when I first heard he’d be in it). He came across as more flawed/arrogant and IMO more of a badass than he was in LOTR, in which I thought he was a bit of a perfect pretty-boy.[/quote]
I still think that his role was over-expanded and took the focus off characters who were actually in the book - particularly Bard, who is really the Aragorn of this story. Nearly every time orcs appeared to threaten the company Legolas would leap in to save the day, bow a blazin’… Maybe it’s just that I’ve never thought of Bloom as a particulary dynamic actor, but he played such an integral part in saving dwarf ass that it undermined their abilities. Similar situation to 47 Ronin where an additional character makes the original characters seem unable to complete a quest without massive help from a figure who was never part of the original story. [/quote]
That’s my main gripe with the LOTR movies in general (which I do like). Jackson takes liberties with the story that I just don’t get or aren’t even necessary.
A “not necessary” example, in the Hobbit after they escape from the Goblins in the mountain, in the book Bilbo says “Out of the fire.” and Gandolf say’s “Into the frying pan.” In the movie Thorin says Bilbo’s part. Was that necessary Mr. Jackson? Wtf…
Putting Arwen on the horse that rescue’s Frodo and brings him across the river and into Rivendale, or having Sauruman be the reason for the snow storm and subsequent trip through Moria are unnecessary changes. Hell having Frodo decide to go to Moria was just weird, I would rather have seen Strider and Gandolf disagree about it like in the book.
I mean, I get you have to stretch/make stuff up when you turn a single book into 6 movies, but come on.
I do like the liberties they took with Azug the Defiler though.
P.S. I probably spelled all their names wrong…
I am going to agree with Rattlehead about Insidious 2. It seemed a bit scarier since they delved into the back-story more.
I haven’t seen the new Paranormal movie, I have seen mixed reviews about it, I still haven’t decided if I will see it.
We saw American Hustle yesterday. It was pretty funny and entertaining and had a great cast.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]furo wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
This is not nearly obscure enough for this crowd, but I finally saw Hobbit II.
At first I was a bit annoyed by the liberties the movie took with the book, but, in hind sight, they actually closed some plot holes in the book — e.g., why a burglar, how did they hope to divide up so much treasure 14 ways, why Gandalf cared about this quest to begin with, etc.
The addition of a elf/dwarf/elf love triangle annoyed me, even though E. Lilly is pretty hot as an elf.[/quote]
I agree with this. I also thought they over-used CGI.
Having said that I thought they really nailed the wood elves and I like what they did with Legolas (though I was dubious when I first heard he’d be in it). He came across as more flawed/arrogant and IMO more of a badass than he was in LOTR, in which I thought he was a bit of a perfect pretty-boy.[/quote]
I still think that his role was over-expanded and took the focus off characters who were actually in the book - particularly Bard, who is really the Aragorn of this story. Nearly every time orcs appeared to threaten the company Legolas would leap in to save the day, bow a blazin’… Maybe it’s just that I’ve never thought of Bloom as a particulary dynamic actor, but he played such an integral part in saving dwarf ass that it undermined their abilities. Similar situation to 47 Ronin where an additional character makes the original characters seem unable to complete a quest without massive help from a figure who was never part of the original story. [/quote]
That’s my main gripe with the LOTR movies in general (which I do like). Jackson takes liberties with the story that I just don’t get or aren’t even necessary.
A “not necessary” example, in the Hobbit after they escape from the Goblins in the mountain, in the book Bilbo says “Out of the fire.” and Gandolf say’s “Into the frying pan.” In the movie Thorin says Bilbo’s part. Was that necessary Mr. Jackson? Wtf…
Putting Arwen on the horse that rescue’s Frodo and brings him across the river and into Rivendale, or having Sauruman be the reason for the snow storm and subsequent trip through Moria are unnecessary changes. Hell having Frodo decide to go to Moria was just weird, I would rather have seen Strider and Gandolf disagree about it like in the book.
I mean, I get you have to stretch/make stuff up when you turn a single book into 6 movies, but come on.
I do like the liberties they took with Azug the Defiler though.
P.S. I probably spelled all their names wrong…
[/quote]
Peter Jackson said that he wanted Aragorn and Arwen to share a classic screen romance, which involved giving Arwen a more prominent role. I haven’t seen Fellowship for a while but I recall her summoning the wave that washed away the Nazgul, explaining why she rescued Frodo.
There were a few instances of natural disasters in the books with no apparent cause: Jackson probably felt that attributing them to specific characters made them seem less random and a better fit in the overall narrative. Mostly it’s just about consolidating dangling plot threads…
Yeah, without Azog there’d have been no active enemy or constant sense of urgency in An Unexpected Journey.
Movie 43 - the notoriously star-studded Farrelly brothers-produced comedy anthology . Good for a few chuckles, but is far less than the sum
of its parts.
Lone Survivor - gripping, amazing; can’t think of much else to say
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
Lone Survivor - gripping, amazing; can’t think of much else to say[/quote]
Had me tearing up like a little girl at the end.
Red 2 - Loved the original. The sequel is lower-key, but redeems itself for treating the old nuke-in-a-suitcase plot as something that should have been dealt with decades ago.
Highly recommend Lone Survivor. Watched it with my dad who was in the Marine Corps for 10 years. I could tell it hit home.
I’d suggest Elysium if you want a preachy piece of garbage that fuels Matt Damon’s ego. Damon comes face to face with the guy who played Murdock in the critically acclaimed A-Team who speaks in an unintelligible New Zealand accent.
Wolf of Wall St. was great. Dicaprio did a great job.
The End was funny as shit. This is the end, not so much.
The Family I pretty good.
I’ve seen so much lately and it’s almost 4 Am.
Watched 13 Assassins having seen the trailer here. Lived up to the hype but the “Saved by the Bell” style dubbing made it hard to be immersed in feudal Japan. Couldn’t find a version with subs. Can anyone shed more light on the 13th Assassin and what his girl was eating in that waterfall?
Also enjoyed Lone Survivor. The tension and desperation of the firefight was palpable, but I wished they’d spent more time on the final act and the Afghan villagers. That part felt like it was just glossed over.
Then I watched 12 Years a Slave, not knowing anything about it other than that it got 5* reviews. Great film, but could not in any way be classified as light entertainment. Makes you feel bad for being white, but glad to be white all the same. Some pretty visceral scenes of violence that were hard to watch, and you can feel the whip cracking in one scene in particular. Seemed to get some dust in my eye on a couple of occasions. I remember when Schindler’s List came out and people said they left the theatre feeling shocked/depressed. This film had a similar effect. Lead actor is excellent.